Standard 1

Across all programs, we viewed our responses to the Standard 1 aspects as an opportunity to work within our existing data system to learn where we are, both programmatically and as an educational unit. With that in mind, programs overwhelmingly relied on existing data sources to triangulate findings. We are fortunate to be a part of the California State University (CSU) system, which has its own Educator Data Quality Center. This Center administers annual surveys to completers of our programs and year-out completers on an annual basis, with items connected to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. These surveys proved to be a valuable resource for our Multiple Subject, Single Subject, and Education Specialist programs. However, because the Bilingual Authorization and Agriculture Specialist programs have fewer numbers of completers annually, results are unavailable to disaggregate by program. Instead, these programs turned to internal measures. Additionally, at Fresno State, we are fortunate to have the Fresno Assessment of Student Teaching II (FAST II). While most educator preparation programs in California use Pearson’s Education Teaching Performance Assessment, Fresno State developed the FAST II (described in greater detail in the aspect responses) with the specific needs of our students in mind. In order to use the FAST II as our teaching performance assessment, as an educational unit, we provide detailed data on a regular basis to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Both of these sources proved to be valuable as we evaluated the work of our programs using the Standard 1 aspects. 

Still, not all perspectives were captured to the extent that we would like or the extent that we intend to capture them from here on out. In some cases, programs articulated plans for how they would collect data to capture additional perspectives in the future. It is our belief that the findings we present in this Quality Assurance Report represent a baseline portrait of the work we do, a starting point from which we can continue to build and grow.

For direct measures of completer performance, we relied on existing assessments used in each program. In particular, our Multiple Subject, Single Subject, Education Specialist, and Ed Specialist programs were able to draw on the Site Visitation Plan (SVP) or the Teaching Sample Project (TSP), components of the FAST II, as a way to measure how well candidates are able to apply what they have learned in their coursework in the classroom context. In other cases, we relied on field placement evaluations. And for all programs, we relied on signature assignments in key courses, all of which are aligned with the appropriate California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Program Standards, where the content aligned with the aspects. 

For indirect measures of candidates, programs again, overall, relied on existing data sources, especially surveys of program candidates at the time of completion. In some instances, programs administered pilot measures to begin capturing perspectives on areas of strength and growth. 

Because we are in the beginning stages of our AAQEP journey, we made the decision to allow each program to determine what data sources would be most meaningful to it and the work it does. Program faculty worked together to identify the most appropriate data sources, analyze the data, interpret the findings, and articulate next steps for each aspect, creating their own continuous improvement journey to move their program forward. As a unit, we then looked across the responses to see how programs might learn from one another as they engage in this work and how we might support their progress. We document all of this in our QAR. 

Within the Standard 1 responses, reviewers will find each program’s responses to each aspect, along with the program’s synthesis and next steps. In the conclusion, we work to synthesize all five programs’ findings and highlight our next steps in our ongoing process to ensure our program completers are ready to perform as professional educators with the capacity to support access for all learners.

_{***Please Note: Throughout Standard 1, we utilize data from the CSU Educator Quality Center surveys. We included screenshots of the analyzed data within the Aspect responses. Unfortunately, we are unable to download raw data to include as links within the responses and the EdQ Center does not allow us to provide guest logins. We are happy to work with reviewers to login to the system jointly to allow for any necessary checks.}