Skip to main content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer content

CCTC Accreditation 2022

Standard 4

Continuous Improvement

The education unit develops and implements a comprehensive continuous improvement process at both the unit level and within each of its programs that identifies program and unit effectiveness and makes appropriate modifications based on findings. 

Figure 4.1: KLASSI Assessment System
Our unit-wide assessment system, Kremen Learning Assessment System to Sustain Improvement (KLASSI), is an assessment and accountability system built upon a continuous improvement model. Our assessment is an on-going, goal-oriented process, viewed as the vehicle for continuous improvement. Assessment system activities include not only gathering data, but also turning those data into rich information through a feedback process used to guide individual candidates, faculty members, programs, and the unit in improving performance, quality and effectiveness. We view assessment as an integral part of learning to foster improvement and the first step in a continual learning cycle (an assessment-learning-change cycle), which includes measurement, feedback, reflection, and change. Aimed at improving teaching and learning, our assessment is an iterative process of developing and organizing activities, signature assignments, courses, curricula, or programs; collecting and interpreting data; and using outcome information to guide decisions. These outcomes serve as determinants of program effectiveness and accountability.

Table 4.2: Table of Data Sources Used in our Continuous Improvement Efforts (PDF)

Unit Data Sources

Annual reporting of key program details to CTC, including demographic data of candidates enrolled within each initial and advanced credential program and program specific details regarding enrollment. 

The CSU Educator Quality Center administers surveys annually to completers of the Multiple Subject, Single Subject, and Education Specialist Programs to gather data about graduates’ perceptions of the program. Results can be disaggregated by various measures including campus, year of completion, respondent race/ethnicity, and type of credential. 

The CTC administers surveys annually to candidates from the following programs: Multiple Subject, Single Subject, Education Specialist, Preliminary Administrative Services Credential, and Other Educator. Results provide aggregate data for CSU, UC, and Private Institutions as a whole about graduates perceptions of program effectiveness.

The CTC administers surveys annually, beginning in Spring 2019, to individuals who served as Master Teachers for Program Candidates. Results provide aggregate data for CSU, UC, and Private Institutions as a whole about Master Teachers’ perceptions of program effectiveness and candidate preparation.

The CTC administers surveys annually, beginning in Fall 2019, to administrators who employ recent program graduates. Results provide aggregate data for CSU, UC, and Private Institutions as a whole about employers’ perceptions of program effectiveness and candidate preparation.

Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS), an integrated system that provides tools for institutions to collaborate with Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and to facilitate the accreditation process.

CAEP, our current national accreditation body (through 2022), requests an annual report of the number of program completers for the previous year along with a narrative of how the Educator Preparation Program continues to meet accreditation requirements. Note: we are in the process of seeking accreditation through Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP). 

CTC annual reporting. Data provided include: 

  • demographics of initial credential completers and those currently enrolled; 
  • past, current, and future goals regarding special education, science, math, and English learners. 
  • admission requirements and School attributes of technology use and teacher training.

Each program and department at the university develops a Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP), a 5-year plan to assess program effectiveness related to outcomes, and an annual report/analysis of collected data related to the SOAPs. These are examined at the department, school, and university levels.

Our Office of Institutional Effectiveness generates data visualizations that focus on student demographics, student DFW rates in courses, graduation/completion rates, and other information about student success. 

The Fresno State Student Rating of Instruction (FSSRI) system allows instructors to choose from a bank of questions and is an opt-out system, meaning that there is a default evaluation distributed to students unless an instructor opts for a different set of questions or to opt out altogether. Campus leaders with expertise in assessment have tested the reliability and validity of each item. Results of these evaluations are placed in faculty personnel files and are part of our university-wide personnel review system.  

Faculty at Fresno State are required to be observed by peers on a regular basis, as per our academic policy manual (APM 322). Observations should address course design and delivery. These observations may be narrative or they may use an adaptation of a form developed by the Academic Senate. Observations are considered as part of the personnel review process. Kremen has also developed its own form used for peer observations. 

Our Information Technology colleagues built a system within PeopleSoft that allows us to pull data into reports that shape our understanding of admissions, student demographics, course grades, and other pertinent items related to our enrolled students. 

Prior to beginning the program, Preliminary Credential Candidates submit a signed 9-item Teacher Candidate Commitment Form, which is aligned with the dispositions articulated within the CSTPs. 

Although most of the California State University campuses use the CalTPA (administered by Pearson) to assess student teacher’s proficiency in California’s Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), Fresno State developed its own in-house system, FAST II, which is now in its second iteration. Fresno State is the only campus within California to use this two-part system: 

We collect, report, and analyze the data associated with this assessment. 

Our Credential Analyst keeps the Individual Development Plans (IDPs) on file (in addition to each coach giving a copy to individual candidates). Coaches identify areas for growth which helps us reflect on how we can build teacher candidate knowledge in specific areas. 

As graduate students, candidates in the Advanced Credential Programs are required to complete Fresno State's Graduate Level Writing Requirement. We track the number and percent of students who pass annually by program, noting major problem areas. Programs then use the information to inform future instruction.

Individual Credential Program Data Sources

Although at present we use an observation form for Multiple Subject, Single Subject, Education Specialist, and Bilingual Authorization programs available in TK20, we are transitioning to the TNTP Core as adapted by Chico State to reflect the California TPEs. This rubric will allow us to collect data across our basic credential programs in key areas: culture of learning, essential content, academic ownership, and demonstration of learning.  

Each Advanced Credential Program uses a Field Placement Evaluation tool that is aligned with its specific program foci. In this way, the tool allows the program to collect data specific to the program goals, data the programs then use to engage in continuous improvement.

Local language assessments in Spanish and Hmong are being created in Spring 2021 for administration in Fall 2021 and recommended to all candidates to assist in the proper course placement. For example, based on Candidate Exit Survey assessment results, it may be recommended that students take a preliminary language course prior to taking the advanced BAP courses.

A District Partner Survey is being developed in Spring 2021, this survey will collect the following data: how many Fresno State BAP graduates are employed, how many bilingual/dual immersion schools and classrooms they have, how many languages are taught, and anticipated growing need of teachers. 

  • Engaging and supporting all students in learning
  • Creating and maintaining an effective environment for students
  • Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning
  • Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students 

  • Program SOAP
  • Candidate performance on CalAPA (California Administrator Performance Assessment): Aligned with the California Administrator Performance Expectations, the CalAPA includes three specific assessment cycles: 
    • Leadership Cycle 1: Analyzing Data to Inform School Improvement and Promote Equity
    • Leadership Cycle 2: Facilitating Communities of Practice
    • Leadership Cycle 3: Supporting Teacher Growth
  • Survey of District Partners

In Fall 2020, the Education Specialist Program faculty developed a needs-assessment survey with items based on the Education Specialist Program Standards. The survey was distributed to both current students and recent alumni to inform program improvement.

  • Program SOAP
  • Field Evaluations of practicum and internship field experiences by field supervisors
  • PRAXIS: Data are collected each year on PRAXIS scores for the National Certification in School Psychology exam

Figure 4.3: Kremen Organization Chart (PDF)

Table 4.4: Assessment Roles and Responsibilities of Personnel in the Unit and Programs (PDF)

Unit Head
Dr. Randy Yerrick, Dean

The Dean of the Kremen School, Dr. Randy Yerrick, functions as the acting Director of Teacher Education according to the KSOEHD Faculty Assembly Constitution (KSOEHD Faculty Assembly Constitution, p. 27 Article VIII Section 2 [3]).  As such the Dean oversees all continuous improvement efforts: leadership, research, planning, coordination, implementation, documentation, monitoring, analysis, and outreach. The Dean works with faculty and staff in programs across the university to assure quality educator preparation and continuous improvement in response to shifting contexts (e.g., COVID -19), as shown in Figure 4.3, the Kremen Organization Chart.

Continuous Improvement Team

  • Dr. Kathleen Godfrey, Associate Dean
  • Laura Rabago, Administrative Services Manager
  • Dr. Heather Horsley, Continuous Improvement Lead, Residency Coordinator, and Multiple Subject Coordinator
  • Dr. Jessica Hannigan, Assessment Coordinator
  • Dr. Juliet Wahleithner, Accreditation Team Member
  • Dr. Susan Schlievert, Accreditation Team Member

Provides leadership and support for assessment and continuous improvement efforts.

Advisory Boards

  • President’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing
  • Kremen Alumni Board
  • Dean’s Advisory Board
  • Community Council
  • Student Advisory Board
  • Superintendent Meetings

Provide guidance, insight, and feedback on educator preparation programs. 

Teach, coach, and support credential candidates both in classroom and clinical practice settings. Give feedback and evaluate within FAST II assessment and clinical practice.

Laura Rabago
Administrative Services Manager

Sherri Nakashima
Credential Analyst

Renee Flores
Credential Program Admissions Analyst

Renee Petch
Graduate Program Admissions Analyst

Brenna Barks
Office of Clinical Practice Program Assistant

Maria Vargas
Internship Program Assistant

Ricci Ulrich
FAST II Coordinator

Dr. Jessica Hannigan
Assessment Coordinator

Dr. Felipe Mercado
Coordinator of Clinical Practice

Dr. Ignacio Hernandez
Director, Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

Department Administrative Support Coordinators

  • Tiffany Jennings
    Educational Leadership Department

  • Martha Lomeli
    FAST II and Curriculum and Instruction Department

  • April Cardiel
    Counselor Education and Rehabilitation Department

  • Mychue Vang
    Liberal Studies Department

  • Carmen Chapman
    Literacy, Early, Bilingual, and Special Education Department

Dean’s Office

  • Laura Rabago
    Administrative Services Manager

  • Samantha Ray
    Communications Specialist

  • Mark Rodriguez
    Budget Analyst

  • Heidi Leacock
    Assistant to the Office of the Dean

Agriculture Specialist:
 Dr. Rosco Vaughn, Dr. Art Parham, and Dr. Steve Rocca

Bilingual Authorization:
 Dr. Ana Soltero-Lopez

Deaf Education:
 Dr. Janice Smith-Warshaw 

Early Childhood Education Authorization:
 Dr. Imelda Basurto 

Education Administration:
 Dr. Jennifer Moradian Watson 

Reading Specialist:
 Dr. Maria Goff

School Counseling:
 Dr. Dominiqua Griffin

School Nurse Services:
Patricia Gomes, M.Ed, PHN, RN and Barbara Miller, MSN, PNP, RN

School Psychologist:
Dr. Marilyn Wilson 

School Social Work:
 Dr. Andrea Carlin 

Single Subject: Dr. Imelda Basurto

  • Agriculture: Dr. Rosco Vaughn, Dr. Art Parham, and Dr. Steve Rocca
  • Art Education: Dr. Ah Ran Koo
  • English Education: Dr. Alison Mandaville
  • Industrial Technology: Professor Darnell Austin
  • Mathematics: Dr. Rajee Amarasinghe, Dr. Agnes Tuska, and Dr. Lance Burger
  • Music Education: Dr. Tony Mowrer and Dr. Emily Mason
  • Physical Education: Dr. Dawn Lewis
  • Sciences: Dr. David Andrews, Dr. Jaime Arvizu, Dr. Ali Hansen
  • Social Sciences: Dr. Neil Conner and Professor Robin Sischo
  • World Languages (French): Dr. Natalie Munoz
  • World Languages (Spanish): Dr. Maria Dolores Morillo
  • Speech Language Pathology: Dr. Sabrina Nii and Dr. Fran Pomaville
 

Table 4.5: Assessment Cycle Schedule (PDF)

Activity

Participants

Implementation

Review data from CSU/CTC Surveys: Completers Survey, One Year Teachers, Employer Surveys

Deans, Program Coordinators

Dean works with Program Coordinators, Faculty, and Staff to implement changes based on findings from analysis

Review data from CSU/CTC Surveys: Completers Survey, One Year Teachers, Employer Surveys

Program Coordinators, Faculty, Staff (In department/ program meetings and during Data Summits)

Program Coordinators, Faculty, and Staff implement programmatic changes based on results of survey analysis

Annual Report to Provost (Current 2019-2020 Report)

  • includes data and analysis about enrollment, graduation, faculty scholarship and service, goals, and progress towards meeting goals

Chairs and Dean

Feedback from Provost implemented by Chairs and Dean

Programs in Kremen: Clinical Practice and Teacher Internship Program Report:

  • generated at the end of each academic year and submitted to both the School/College and University
  • reviewed by both the Dean and upper administration

Coordinators and Faculty

Program Coordinators and Faculty use written feedback to inform planning for the subsequent academic year.

FAST II Psychometric Evaluation to determine instrument validity and reliability

Faculty in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the Office of Clinical Practice, and the Dean’s Office

When group pass rate differences are found, we investigate the possible sources and address/revise as necessary.

Faculty Review process:

  • Lecturers: 3 year cycle. 
  • Tenured faculty: promotion applications

Personnel Committees (department, school, university), deans, provost

Feedback during each review by each reviewing body

Accreditation Reviews & Report Preparation

Kremen works with Coordinators of Programs that are already nationally accredited: 

  • School Social Work/CWA PPS (Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)), 
  • Deaf/HH Education (Council of Education of the Deaf (CED))

Program Coordinators and Faculty implement changes based on findings from report preparation

Activity

Participants

Implementation

Accreditation Unit Meeting to review unit organization and all activities within education unit

Dean, Program Coordinators

Dean and Program Coordinators make changes based on findings

Data Summit to discuss unit-wide data collection activities and analysis

for the purposes of continuous improvement. We divide into small breakout groups by department or program to discuss data collection, analyze data, and plan for improvements. We also encourage ongoing follow up and data analysis within program/department meetings. 

Kremen faculty and staff

Implementation by program faculty and staff

Analysis of Tableau Visualizations (enrollment data)

Deans, Department Chairs, Departments, and Program faculty

Specific follow up on recruitment, student support, and curriculum

Credential application analysis and review

Credential Analyst

Credential Analyst presents to Deans; Dean, Program Coordinators, and Staff work together to implement changes based on findings

Review of Admissions Data

Center for Advising and Student Services as well as the Office of Clinical Practice

Centering for Advising and Student Services, Office of Clinical Practice, and Program Coordinators work together to make decisions about admissions, special considerations, and recruitment efforts

Course Alignment Discussion: Key assignment expectations plus student performance on key assignments

Program Faculty

Faculty revise coursework based on analysis of student performance and expectations

Final assessment of candidates (coursework and clinical practice)

Faculty

Faculty make changes to courses based on analysis of candidate final assessment performance

FAST II calibration & scoring sessions

FAST II Coordinator, Coordinator of Office of Clinical Practice, faculty

FAST II Coordinator works with faculty to implement changes based on results

Analysis of FAST II Results

Program faculty (SS and MS) and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Planning related to student support, curriculum, and any needed revisions to the FAST II

Clinical Practice placements review

Coordinator of the Office of Clinical Practice and program assistant, program coordinators, Associate Dean

Coordinator of the Office of Clinical Practice makes changes to placements based on findings

Induction Board Meetings

County/district/ school personnel, Coordinator of the Office of Clinical Practice

Coordinator of the Office of Clinical Practice makes necessary adjustments to placements

Review of Policy and Student Concerns

Program faculty and coordinators

Program coordinators implement changes when necessary based on findings

Student Evaluations Review

Deans, department chairs 

Deans and department chairs follow up with faculty as needed

Special Consideration Committee

Program coordinators, staff, and faculty

Program coordinators and staff

Activity

Participants

Implementation

Clinical practice midterm and final evaluation meetings

Coaches, students, mentor teachers

Coaches, students, and mentor teachers adjust support based on discussions at evaluation meetings

Residency Meetings to discuss and review 

District/school personnel, residency coordinator, faculty, program coordinators

Residency coordinators

Activity

Participants

Implementation

Assessment Committee: Review and implementation of policy changes

Unit Faculty representatives

Faculty and staff make changes to assessment plan based on feedback

Curriculum Committee: Review and implementation of policy changes 

Unit Faculty representatives

Faculty and staff make changes to curriculum based on feedback

Multiple Subject Program Meetings: Review and implementation of policy changes; review of programmatic data (candidate performance, field place evaluations, exit survey findings, etc.) 

Program Coordinator, Faculty, and Coaches

Faculty and staff make changes to program based on feedback

Single Subject Program Meetings: Review and implementation of policy changes; review of programmatic data (candidate performance, field place evaluations, exit survey findings, etc.) 

Program Coordinator, Faculty, and Coaches

Faculty and staff make changes to program based on feedback

Individual Program Meetings: Review and implementation of policy changes; review of programmatic data (candidate performance, field place evaluations, exit survey findings, etc.) 

Program Coordinators plus Faculty

Faculty and staff make changes to program based on feedback

Activity

Participants

Implementation

Credential Program admissions and monitoring processes: Each program monitors candidate admissions and progress towards the credential at four crucial points (See Decision Points Matrices for Initial and Advanced Credentials, Tables 4.6 and 4.7) 

Program Coordinators and Advisors

Program Coordinators, Advisors, Faculty, and Coaches make changes in how candidates are supported based on findings at program checkpoints

Coaching and feedback sessions in clinical practice; monitoring of candidate development in TPEs (at least 6 times/semester)

Coaches, mentor teachers, students

Coaches and mentor teachers make changes to support provided based on findings from discussion

Analysis of Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (Assessment cycle happens throughout the year. Specific documentation and analysis formalized in a document each fall)

Each program and department at the university develops student outcomes, a 5 year plan to assess program effectiveness related to outcomes, and an annual report/analysis of collected data related to the SOAPs. These are examined at the department, school, and university levels.

Assessment coordinators (University and Kremen), departments, program faculty

Based on feedback from Assessment Committee and findings from analysis of student outcomes, Program Coordinators work with faculty to implement changes to program structure and coursework

Activity

Participants

Implementation

University Program Review 

According to the university, “Periodic program reviews provide a mechanism for faculty to evaluate the effectiveness, progress, and status of their academic programs on a cyclical basis. It is an opportunity for the department (or program) to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses within the context of the mission of the university and of current and emerging directions in the discipline.”

Coordinators, Faculty, Departments, Deans, Community Partners)

Based on feedback from University and program evaluation of effectiveness and progress, Program Coordinators work with faculty to implement changes to program structure and coursework

Table 4.6: Decision Points Matrix: Basic Credentials (PDF)
Table 4.7: Decision Points Matrix: Advanced Credentials (PDF)

Table 4.8: Sample Program Modifications (PDF)

Modification

Process Used to Identify and Implement Modification

Adopting a new rubric, a version of The New Teacher Project's (TNTP) Core rubric adapted by Chico State to foreground the California Teacher Performance Expectations. The decision to use this rubric was made with full participation and consultation of stakeholders.

After feedback from coaches that the rubric being used to evaluate candidates' field placement work was too unwieldy, Program Leadership identified existing rubrics that might suit our needs. We shared these with Coaches who would be using the rubrics and evaluated the strengths and limitations of each.

Modification

Process Used to Identify and Implement Modification

In-Progress Modifications: More focused instruction in courses on (1) developing curriculum and modifying instruction for students with special needs and (2) developing IEPs and holding team meetings

In Fall 2020, the Education Specialist Program faculty developed a needs-assessment survey based on the Education Specialist TPEs that was distributed to 121 current students and recent alumni. A total of 33 individuals responded to the survey.
Moving forward, the survey will be administered each semester.

Modification

Process Used to Identify and Implement Modification

Specific changes to coursework:
• Additional theory and training in implementation of the Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses model for identification of specific learning disabilities
• Incorporation of systematic assessment for autism into our coursework
• Addition of counseling coursework and increased coverage of response to crises, such as suicides and shootings via the PREPaRE training
• Increased discussion of systems-level responses associated with social emotional learning and Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports

Program faculty developed a survey with items based on the current training standards of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). The survey was emailed to field supervisors, local administrators/employers, and alumni of the program, and respondents were asked to indicate district or agency need on a scale from strong need to no need, and also to rate the CSU, Fresno training program as need met, partially met, not net, or unable to judge. There were 54 responses (54% response rate); three-fourths were CSU, Fresno graduates ranging from 1991 to 2017, with the majority graduating during this review period (2011-2017).
Analysis of individual items and standards indicated areas where we can add to our training. As expected in a field closely aligned with special education, knowledge of assessment measures and eligibility criteria and skills in synthesizing information and report writing were rated as strongly needed by almost all respondents.
Another area of need rated as critical was mental health. Mental health and trauma-informed schools are foci of our national organization as well, and clearly mental health services in the schools are needed today.

Back to Top