Skip to contentSkip to navigation

Get the latest information about Spring 2022 Updates/COVID-19. Before coming to campus, take the COVID-19 Daily Screening.

Standard 1 Aspect C

Standard 1c: Evidence shows that, by the time of program completion, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators appropriate to their target credential or degree, including:

Culturally responsive practice, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning


Case for Standard 1c
For this aspect, the SPED program used two data sources: the CSU Year One Teacher Survey and Midterm and Final Fieldwork Evaluations

Data Sources & Analysis

Data Source 1

CSU Educator Quality Center Year-One Teacher Survey

Description of Data Source:
For candidates who completed a CSU educator preparation program each academic year from 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, the CSU Educator Quality Center administered a year-out survey to learn how well the educators, after their first year in the field, believed the program had prepared them. Year One Teachers respond to each item on a 1-5 scale, where 1 indicates they were not at all prepared, 2 indicates they were poorly prepared; 3 indicates they were adequately prepared; 4 indicates they were well prepared and 5 indicates they were very well prepared.

Due to the challenges of educators in Spring 2020, the CSU Educator Quality chose not to administer the survey at that time, meaning data are not available for candidates who completed in 2018-2019. Survey administration began again in Spring 2021, and we look forward to analyzing those data when they become available.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Year One Teacher

Rationale for using Data Source:
The CSU Educator Quality Center survey captures the perspectives of program completers after their first year of teaching. Items on the survey invite candidates to share how well they believe the program prepared them in several key areas. We specifically looked at two items in one domain: “Meeting the Needs of All Students.”

Specific Elements of Data Source: 
Item selected from the Year One Teacher Survey include:

  • Element 1: Preparation of Teachers for Equity and Diversity in Teaching
  • Element 2: Preparation of Teachers to Teach English Learners 

Definition of Success for Each Element: 
Programmatically, our goal is to have our completer average within .2 of the CSU average. A more long term goal would be to have our average at 3.5 or above. 

Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 1, CSU Year One Completer Survey, 2015-18

Fresno State CSU
15-16
n=12
16-17
n=6
17-18
n=16
Overall
n=34
15-16
n=254
16-17
n=154
17-18
n=146
Overall
n=554
Element 1: Preparation of Teachers for Equity and Diversity in Teaching
2.53 3.12 2.24 2.5 2.96 2.79 2.76 2.84
Element 2: Preparation of Teachers to Teach English Learners
2.37 2.89 1.99 2.28 2.75 2.56 2.54 2.62

Link to Full Dataset:
The link to the full dataset is unavailable. However, if reviewers would like to view the CSU Educator Quality Center Data Dashboards, we are happy to set up a time to provide them access by sharing screens in a Zoom session.

Interpretation of Data:
Using this data as baseline data illustrates that our program needed to make huge strides in its preparation of teachers who reflect our program’s commitment to equity and diversity and to culturally and linguistically sustaining practices. Not only were we well below the CSU average in 2015-18, but we also were far from reaching our goal of an overall average of 3.5. The data that follows allows us to reflect on our growth over the last three years. 

Data Source 2

Midterm and Final Fieldwork Evaluations

Description of Data Source:
Candidates in the Education Specialist Program receive a formal evaluation during both their initial and final student teaching.  For this data source, the program purposely chose to report the results of the evaluations from both the midway and final stages of three cycles (i.e., semesters) of student teaching. The University Coaches rate candidates on a scale of 1-4 with 1 as “Does not meet Expectations” and 4 as “Exceeds Expectations.” 

Perspective Captured from Data Source:   University Coach

Rationale for using Data Source:
The midterm and final field work evaluation are used by our clinical practice/fieldwork coaches to provide observational feedback to student teachers at both the midway and final stages of three cycles (i.e., semesters) of student teaching. We used these evaluations to measure our candidates’ progress in support of culturally and linguistically sustaining practices including student intersectionality and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Coaches’ scores of candidates on the following items at both the midterm and final stages of candidates’ student teaching:

  • Item 2: Inclusive Learning Environment
  • Item 9: Research Based Instruction for Emergent Bilinguals
  • Item 12: Adapt subject matter curriculum, organization, and planning to support the acquisition and use of academic language within learning activities to promote the subject matter knowledge of all students, including the full range of English learners, Standard English learners, students with disabilities, and students with other learning needs in the least restrictive environment.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
It is the goal of the special education program to prepare all candidates to demonstrate culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogy within their student teaching placements. To measure growth on each item scale, we examined the increase/decrease in scores from the midpoint to the final evaluation for each semester (i.e., both initial student teaching and final student teaching semesters). 

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Figure 1, Midterm and Final Fieldwork Rubric, Item 2Figure 1

Figure 2, Midterm and Final Fieldwork Rubric, Item 9Figure 2

Figure 3, Midterm and Final Fieldwork Rubric, Item 12Figure 3

Link to Full Dataset: 2019-2021 Midterm and Final Evaluations Dataset

Interpretation of Data:
Although ultimately it is our aim for every candidate to demonstrate the highest (5 out of 5) scores on coaching evaluations, it is notable that candidate scores over these three semesters (cycles) show general overall improvements between the mid and final evaluation. Although growth during the Spring 2020 semester was not improved from mid to final evaluation, average assessment scores at the midpoint were relatively high (item 2 = 4.8, item 9 = 4.41, item 12 = 4.81). It is our goal to continue to measure these areas of growth and to see improvement from mid to final evaluation points.

Data Source 3

CSU Education Quality Center Program Completer Survey 

Description of Data Source:
Each year, the CSU Educator Quality Center administers a survey to program completers to learn their perceptions of how well the program prepared them in a number of areas aligned with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE). Program completers from all CSU campuses are invited to respond to each item on a 1-5 scale, where 1 indicates they believed that they were “not at all” prepared and 5 indicates they believe they were “very well” prepared.” Fresno State has a high rate of completion due to the efforts of our credential analyst who requires completion as part of the credential application process. 

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Program Completers

Rationale for using Data Source: 
CSU Educator Quality Center Completer Survey captures program completers’ anonymous perspectives of how well the program prepared them at the conclusion of their teaching credential coursework and field experiences, providing valuable insights into their perceptions of the program.

Specific Elements of Data Source: 
Candidate responses for: How well did your program prepare you:

  • To engage in culturally responsive teaching
  • To meet the instructional needs of English Learners
  • To use the California English Language Development Standards to guide instruction of English Learners

Definition of Success:  Our definition of success:

  • 0% reporting in the “Not at all Prepared” category
  • 10% or less in the “Poorly Prepared” category
  • Overall positive ratings 90% or higher

We chose to analyze aggregate data from the past four cohorts of candidates, as well as disaggregated data from each cohort in order to determine if there were any trends in responses.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 2, CSU Completer Survey, Element 1, 2018-21

Element 1:  To engage in culturally responsive teaching
Year 2018-2019
N=62
2019-2020
N=51
2020-2021
N=48
Not at all 0% 0% 0%
Poorly Prepared 3.2% 2% 0%
Adequately Prepared 25.8% 25.5% 18.8%
Well Prepared 45.2% 47.1% 45.8%
Very Well Prepared 25.8% 25.5% 35.4%
Overall Negative 3% 2% 0%
Overall Positive 97% 98% 98%

Table 3, CSU Completer Survey, Element 2, 2018-21

Element 2:  To meet the instructional needs of English Learners
Year 2018-2019
N=62
2019-2020
N=51
2020-2021
N=48
Not at all 1.7% 0% 2.1%
Poorly Prepared 3.3% 3.8% 0%
Adequately Prepared 36.7% 36.5% 25.5%
Well Prepared 36.7% 36.5% 25.5%
Very Well Prepared 36.7% 46.2% 48.9%
Overall Negative 5% 4% 2%
Overall Positive 95% 96% 98%

Table 4, CSU Completer Survey, Element 3, 2018-21

Element 3:  To use the California English Language Development Standards to guide instruction of English Learners
Year 2018-2019
N=62
2019-2020
N=51
2020-2021
N=48
Not at all 0% 0% 0%
Poorly Prepared 8.3% 2% 2.1%
Adequately Prepared 28.3% 35.3% 27.1%
Well Prepared 35% 41.2% 35.40%
Very Well Prepared 28.3% 21.6% 35.4%
Overall Negative 8% 2% 2%
Overall Positive 92% 98% 98%

Link to Data Sources:CSU Educator Quality Center Completer Survey 

Interpretation of Data:
We met our goal on 2 of the 3 measures for success. The data show that our work in preparing teachers who address the needs of diverse learners is improving. 81% of completers last year felt that they were prepared well to “engage in culturally responsive teaching.” That represents 10% growth in this area over the last 3 years. However, the data reveal we have not yet reached our goal of no completers who rate themselves as not prepared in the area of  working with English learners. This is especially concerning because we are in an area with a large population of students who are emergent bilinguals. 

Although we have not yet reached our goal on any of these measures, Still, the data reveal two concerns: 1) completers’ low scores in the area of working with English learners and implementing the California English Language Development Standards to guide instruction of English Learners 2) Moreover, although the percentages are decreasing, there is still a small percentage of completers who rate themselves as “not at all prepared” or “poorly prepared” in these same areas. 

Next Steps Narrative: 
It is evident from the analyzed data presented in the coaches evaluations that there is room for continued improvement, although midterm scores are already promising. It would be more informative to assess initial evaluation scores at the beginning of the semester to establish baseline score data. Overall, this data indicates that student teachers (candidates) are acquiring necessary skills to incorporate cultural and linguistically sustaining practices into their future classrooms (see item 2, item, 9, item 12).

The opportunity for exposure to diverse learners is particularly prevalent within our geographical setting as our student population who identify as English Language Learners as well as ethnically diverse is considerably higher than the national average. However, as Data Source Three reveals, there is room for a great deal of improvement for our program’s preparation of teachers who are competent and knowledgeable in working with emergent bilinguals. Since we are in the process of redesigning our program, this will be a focus as we consider program requirements and coursework. 

Aspect D →