Assessing Partnership Evolution
K-12 Achievement, Supervisor and Grad Surveys, and TPAs
(plus some very interesting data regarding selectivity)
Our Context
2/26/2014
Fresno is the 5th largest city in CA
Fresno is the 34th largest city in USA
Fresno County is the richest agricultural county in the U.S. with
$5.5B in agricultural production/year
Brookings Institute ranks
Fresno #5 for concentrated
urban poverty, three years
ago we were #1..
Fresno includes CA 18
of Rep. Jim Costa
\
436/435
+ DC in mean
family income
Local Schools are about
35% English Learners
Fresno State enrolls
But Fresno has the lowest
23,000 students, graduates
college completion rate of any
3700 students, and awards
900 graduate degrees each year…SMSA in the United States.
2/26/2014
CSU Teacher Education
 Post-Baccalaureate only
 Until 2013, must be able to be
completed in a year
C
 Must be subject
matter
competent through exam
 Emphasizes preparation for
ELD and SpEd
 Collect data on all program
completers
Kremen Post Bac and Grad Enrollment
2/26/2014
Partner Schools Vision
Vision - 2005
To enhance educational
achievement in the Central
Valley by preparing future
teachers for the classrooms
of the 21st century by
building collaborative
partnerships between
university and public school
faculty to strengthen the
opportunities for careerlong learning and
professional growth.
Began 2006 with 1 Partnership
IN 2011-12
8 Partnerships
IN 2013-14
7 K-12 teaching 8 administration
includes dual and Teacher Residency
Distinguishing Features:
Classes held on district school
sites
Teacher candidates are
cohorted
Daytime classes that are
planned around the district
schedule
Partnership liaison faculty
member assigned
Field experiences are
primarily in that district and
are more closely connected to
coursework
Some faculty team teach
courses with district partners
(teachers, administrators)
Partnership for Exemplary Teachers
“Partner Schools”
More Features:
Courses taught with the
district “lens”
Co-teaching utilized,
teachers are trained in
unison with candidates
Master teacher conference
Character Education
Conference
Tried assigning candidates
to schools’ PLCs, works
better to have them be part
of PLC
Partnership for Exemplary Teachers
“Partner Schools”
Fresno State and PK-12 faculty
revising program and syllabi
Many courses team taught w/ K-12
Faculty Model Lessons in Partnership
.
Co Teaching Workshops
• Provide substitute or, if on Saturday, pay
master teacher a stipend (sub pay)
• Master teacher conference
•Walk through with District and Fresno Pacific
2/26/2014
Prepare teachers for the valley
context
Urban/Rural
Diverse & linguistically rich
Poverty
All students achieve
Be seen as an indispensible
partner for districts/COEs
Supt Hanson
specifically
requested a
partnership to
prepare upper
grade and middle
school teachers
for success with
all students with
a particular
emphasis in math
and science.
Spring 2012
Partnership Study:
Qualitative Component
• Purpose: To learn about the effects
of the Partnership Program over time
• Theoretical framework:
transformative paradigm (Mertens,
2005)
Evolution- originally MS only
3 semesters…then 12 month…
Then Ed Administration
Then Single Subject
Then Dual Multiple and SpEd (two year)
Then Teacher Residency
Next tchr residency/masters and credential
Tchr Residency Math/Science basic credential
Next Linked Learning Secondary
2/26/2014
evolution
From us going to them to them coming to us and requesting
e.g.
Dual
tcher residency
Porterville
Washington Union rural
Fresno Unified/Fresno State
Bechtel Grant
Teacher Residency Program
FALL 2013
With partner Fresno Unified
Bechtel granted a $470,000
grant to support the
preparation of teachers for
grades 4-8 with emphasis on
Science and Math.
FUSD
Bechtel Grant
Teacher Residency
Teacher Candidates commit to
the 14 month program and
being on sites all day.
Committed to increased
educational experiences in
math and science earning a
foundational credential in
math and/or science.
If hired commit to work for
FUSD for 3 years.
Are provided a stipend
$12,500.
FUSD
Bechtel Grant
Teacher Residency
2014-2015
Masters and Credential
(four terms)
Bechtel has tentatively
committed to 3 more years at
up to $300,000/year
Assessment of Partnership
Pathways
Effect on program changes on specific skills
K-12 Achievement
Qualitative
TPAs
Selectivity..unanticipated outcome
2/26/2014
Survey of Employers and Graduates
Employment supervisors and graduates
at the end of the graduates first year of
professional teaching.
110 items
5 broad areas
26 composites
26 Teacher Preparation Composites
Teacher Composite B-1: First-Year Multiple-Subject Teachers Assess
Their CSU Preparation for Reading-Language Arts Instruction (K-8)
Where and When Teachers Were Prepared
Well Prepared
Adequately Prepared
Somewhat Prepared
53%
Not-at-All Prepared
32%
12%
CSUFr 07-08
85%
CSUFr 06-07
79%
CSUFr 05-06
81%
CSUFr 04-05
82%
CSUFr 03-04
85%
CSUFr 02-03
88%
CSUFr 99-02
83%
System 07-08
85%
System 06-07
84%
System 05-06
81%
System 04-05
83%
53%
30%
13%
4%
System 03-04
83%
52%
31%
13%
4%
System 02-03
49%
46%
77%
0%
17%
35%
48%
34%
33%
47%
34%
51%
25%
50%
3%
12%
3%
14%
37%
19%
75%
Percentages of Teaching Graduates Whose CSU Preparation Was Assessed One Year After It was Completed
2%
12%
15%
33%
40%
0%
14%
31%
51%
2%
12%
34%
54%
5%
13%
42%
49%
2%
13%
30%
46%
4%
18%
55%
84%
System 99-02
30%
3%
4%
3%
5%
100%
What demonstrates the
validity of the data?
• Quality of preparation is not related to
number of units required in the credential
program.
• Quality of preparation is not related to size of
program
• Employment supervisor ratings are not related
to:
– Percent eligible for free or reduced lunch
– Percent of English Learners
– Achievement decile of the school
– Number of emergency credentialed teachers in
the school
No Effect on Results
Student SES/poverty level
Student EL status
Graduates’ Parent Education or Income
Number of courses/units in credential
program
Number of students in the program
(boutique vs large)
P-12 school achievement level at which
first year teacher teaches
Specific Attempts to Improve
Preparation Resulted in
Improved Ratings
2/26/2014
Well Prepared in Technology
2/26/2014
Teach English Learners
2/26/2014
Areas Without Improvement Plan
2/26/2014
Pathways to Teaching
Traditional Campus-Based
Partner Schools
Internships
All 3 have exactly the same courses,
texts, & pool of instructors
Traditional Campus-Based Program




Classes held on campus
Usually at night
Students are not cohorted
Field experiences are spread across
various districts and only loosely
connected to coursework
Internships

District has hired teacher
candidate prior to completing
preliminary credential
 Courses are the same as full
time teacher candidates
 Courses are taken in the
evenings
 Interns are assigned a
supervisor
 Interns attend monthly
workshops (Friday evening
and Saturday)
Survey Composites
Advantage of
Partnerships
Overall effectiveness of basic teaching credential
program in the CSU system.
+10
Preparation to understand and teach core subjects
of school curriculum at distinct levels.
+10
Preparation of general pedagogical principles and
practices.
+17
Preparation to teach California’s students in
diverse groups and stages of development.
+20
Overall quality of the CSU teacher preparation.
+10
Cohorted MS Programs and Non-Cohorted MS Program Graduates at CSU Fresno Rate Their Preparation
Overall Prep C
38%
Overall Prep NC
41%
24%
42%
35%
Value Fieldwork NC
Assess & Reflct C
6%
24%
41%
26%
50%
5%
8%
13%
41%
25%
2%
16%
38%
25%
5%
21%
34%
43%
2%
11%
43%
30%
0%
21%
42%
45%
5%
12%
40%
30%
2%
12%
36%
45%
Manage Clsrm C
8%
23%
50%
Motivate Stds C
4%
23%
34%
3%
18%
60%
Plan Instruction NC
Assess & Reflct NC
13%
67%
Plan Instruction C
7%
34%
Value Fieldwork C
4%
26%
50%
Value of Courses NC
Manage Clsrm NC
17%
41%
Value of Courses C
Motivate Stds NC
Not-at-All Prepared
Somewhat Prepared
Adequately Prepared
Well Prepared
75%
Percentages of Teaching Graduates Whose CSU Preparation Was Assessed One Year After It was Complete
4%
7%
100%
Cohorted MS Programs and Non-Cohorted MS Program Graduates at CSU Fresno Rate Their Preparation
26%
Prep Sp Lrners NC
Somewhat Prepared
Adequately Prepared
Well Prepared
40%
28%
38%
Prep Sp Lrners C
40%
26%
Prep Engl Lrnrs NC
41%
41%
Use Technology NC
Use Technology C
0%
40%
25%
33%
34%
30%
50%
6%
16%
34%
25%
4%
26%
41%
Use Mix Strat C
7%
13%
41%
27%
4%
26%
43%
Use Mix Strat NC
6%
16%
41%
Prep Assess/Refl C
4%
26%
41%
25%
Prep Assess/Refl NC
9%
16%
41%
40%
Prep Equity/Div C
4%
25%
45%
27%
Prep Equity/Div NC
5%
13%
38%
35%
Prep Middle Gr C
5%
25%
45%
25%
7%
17%
43%
Prep Engl Lrnrs C
Prep Middle Gr NC
Not-at-All Prepared
4%
11%
24%
75%
Percentages of Teaching Graduates Whose CSU Preparation Was Assessed One Year After It was Complete
8%
100%
• Cohort model
• Liaison support
• Investment in the culture and language of a
school district
• Stronger bridge between theory and practice
– especially through team teaching and
modeling lessons
TPA
• TPA Outcomes
• TPA with survey
2/26/2014
Achievement
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
http://edresults.org/ccag/visits/centralvalley/a
chievequadv2.php
How the California State University Examines
K-12 Student Learning as One Outcome of CSU Teacher Education
Measuring K-12 Student Learning as a Teacher Education Outcome in California
Measured Progress by California Students in
Learning Important Ideas and Abilities
1. Factors Beyond the Control of Policymakers and Educators in California:
• Parent Education Levels
• Family Income and Assets
• Students’ English Proficiency
when Instruction Begins
• Students’ Other Special Needs
CSU-CTQ Slide 2
Measuring K-12 Student Learning as a Teacher Education Outcome in California
Measured Progress by California Students in
Learning Important Ideas and Abilities
1. Factors Beyond the Control of Policymakers and Educators in California:
2. Factors that California Policymakers and Educators Influence:
• Parent Education Levels
• Family Income and Assets
• Students’ English Proficiency
when Instruction Begins
• Students’ Other Special Needs
• Learner Populations Previously
Underserved by Education
• Teacher-Student Ratios and Class
Sizes
• Cultures of Poor Performance in
Many Schools
CSU-CTQ Slide 3
Measuring K-12 Student Learning as a Teacher Education Outcome in California
Measured Progress by California Students in
Learning Important Ideas and Abilities
1. Factors Beyond the Control of Policy- 2. Factors that California Policymakers and Educators in California:
makers and Educators Influence:
• Parent Education Levels
• Family Income and Assets
• Students’ English Proficiency
when Instruction Begins
• Students’ Other Special Needs
CSU-CTQ Slide 4
• Learner Populations Previously
Underserved by Education
• Teacher-Student Ratios and Class
Sizes
• Cultures of Poor Performance in
Many Schools
3. Factors that Policymakers and Educators
Influence or Control in California:
• Traditional and Alternative Pathways into
Teaching
• Alternative Ways for Candidates to
Demonstrate Subject-Matter Competence
• Differences Between Bilingual and
Monolingual Preparation Programs
• Focused or Infused Treatment of Significant
Pedagogical Topics
Measuring K-12 Student Learning as a Teacher Education Outcome in California
Measured Progress by California Students in
Learning Important Ideas and Abilities
1. Factors Beyond the Control of California Policymakers & Educators:
2. Factors that California Policymakers and Educators Influence:
3. Factors that Policymakers and Educators
Influence or Control in California:
• Parent Education Levels
• Family Income and Assets
• Students’ English Proficiency
When Instruction Begins
• Students’ Other Special Needs
• Student Populations Previously
Underserved by Education
• Teacher-Student Ratios and Class
Sizes
• Cultures of Poor Performance in
Many Schools
• Traditional and Alternative Pathways into
Teaching
• Alternative Ways for Candidates to
Demonstrate Subject-Matter Competence
• Differences Between Bilingual and
Monolingual Preparation Programs
• Focused or Infused Treatment of Significant
Pedagogical Topics
CSU Assesses the Effects of Teacher Education’s Features on K-12 Student Learning by . . .
1.Compiling student data that includes all of the measured factors in Sets 1, 2 and 3 above, so each student’s record includes
data on the features of preparation experienced by each teacher who taught core subject(s) to that student in a given year.
2.Focusing on academic “learning” and not “status” by measuring each student’s academic growth in each year.
3.Reporting the statistical effects of each factor in Sets 1-3 while statistically minimizing the effects of every other factor in
Sets 1-3 on annual growth in math, science, reading-language arts, and history-social studies by large numbers of pupils.
4.Providing each university with statistical results that have “actionable implications” for teacher education decision-makers.
5.Providing each university with a comprehensive file of linked student–teacher data for faculty researchers to analyze.
CSU-CTQ Slide 5
Value-Added Research
What is the value of having a
teaching credential from the CSU?
First large scale study of the value-added by
teacher preparation programs
CSU versus non-CSU teacher preparation programs
Sample = 25,530 students and 925 teachers
All between-group contrasts are significant at
the .01 level.
The Relative Importance of 12 Educational and Demographic Factors that Account for
Year-to-Year Gains in Mathematics by Students in Urban Middle Schools and High Schools
Class Size
Asian-White Gap
Parent Education Level
Family Income Level
Student's Gender
Student's English Proficiency Level
Years of Teacher's Experience
In urban secondary schools, students learned more mathematics when taught by
CSU first- and second-year teachers than by other first- and second-year teachers.
The orange bar represents the relative importance of this factor in student learning.
(1) For urban students trying to learn mathematics in grades 7-12, the difference between
CSU teacher preparation and non-CSU teacher preparation (orange bar) was:
● 27 times more influential than class size,
● five times more influential than parent education level, and
● four times more influential than family income level.
(2) Also for students in 7-12, the greater effectiveness of CSU preparation (orange) was:
● 1.6 times more influential than student English proficiency level, and
● 1.2 times more than the gap between first-year and second-year teachers.
CSU Teachers and Other Teachers
Latino-White Gap
Black-White Gap
Student's Disability Status
(3) The CSU difference was also equivalent to:
● 81 percent of the Latino-white gap,
● 52 percent of the black-white gap, and
● 44 percent of the gap between students
with and without disabilities.
Student's Prior Level of Math Learning
Intellectual Property of -0.1
the
CSU Center for Teacher Quality
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Standard Deviations in Students’ Year-to-Year Gains in Secondary Math for College and Career Readiness
Alternative Pathways into Teaching as a Factor in K-12 Student Learning:
The Effects of Alternative Pathways Compared with Eleven Other Educational and Demographic Factors
Class Size
Asian-White Gap
In urban secondary schools, students learned more mathematics when taught by
former CSU student teachers than by former CSU intern teachers. The blue bar
represents the relative importance of these alternative pathways for student learning.
(1) The greater effectiveness of CSU supervised teaching
over CSU intern teaching (blue) was:
Parent Education Level
● eighteen times more influential than class size,
● three times more influential than parent education level,
● two times more influential than family income level, and
● 1.1 times more influential than student English proficiency level.
Student's Gender
Family Income Level
Student's English Proficiency Level
Former Interns, Former Student Teachers
Years of Teacher's Experience
(2) The greater effectiveness of student teaching also was:
● 72% as influential as the difference between
first-year and second-year CSU teachers,
● 45% as influential as the gap between
Latino students and white students,
● 39% as influential as the black-white gap, and
● 31% as influential as the gap between students
with and without disabilities.
Latino-White Gap
Black-White Gap
Student's Disability Status
Student's Prior Level of Math Learning
0.000
CSU-CTQ Slide 6
0.120
0.240
0.360
0.480
0.600
Standard Deviations in Students’ Year-to-Year Growth in Secondary Mathematics for College & Career Readiness
Qualitative
2/26/2014
Data Collection: Focus Groups
Spring 2006
• Student Teachers
 6 focus groups
 3 districts
 26 student teachers
• Master Teachers
 2 focus groups
 2 districts
 13 master teachers
• Principals
 1 focus groups
 2 districts
 3 principals
• University Director
 2 co-directors
Fall 2011, Spring and Fall 2012
• Student Teachers
 3 focus groups
 3 districts
 32 student teachers
• Master Teachers
 2 focus groups
 2 districts
 13 master teachers
• Principals
 1 focus groups
 1 district
 4 principals
• University Director
 1 director
Student Teacher Reasons for Choosing
the Partnership
• Initial reasons
 Convenience of location
 Job and children’s after school schedules
• Later reasons – support
 “Because I had two friends. One didn’t do a partnership and one did.
That was just a whole big deal of difference, all the things that they
experienced. And you notice it once you’re done, once you look back
on it. Like, ‘What did I learn? What did I take from it?’ And I can say
that when I was in the Partnership cohort, I took out more, had more
to say, had more to look back on positively. And the friend, I mean
I’ve never seen him teach or anything, but he just regrets it. He
wishes he could have done the Partnership because there was that
time when he had questions, and none were answered . . . And he
succeeded, but not the way he wanted.”
 “I wish everyone could see the benefit of the Partnership, so hopefully
we were of some assistance so people will know to take advantage of
it.”
• All student teachers in 2006 and 2011 would choose the Partnership
Program again
Student Teacher Perspectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration, networking and professional partnerships
Did everything together, learned from each other
 “We learned a lot from each other. We just took each other’s ideas and strategies, and
we implemented it in our own work and classroom, and that really helped us. When we
would have conversations about what to do with this kid, what should I do with this
project, and so we really collaborated even outside of class. Emailed each other, ‘Hey,
can you help me with this?’ We’ve all learned to work with each other and I feel like
just having this positive experience is going to benefit us.”
Student teacher bonding
 “We’ve grown as one big family.”
Vicariously exposed to multiple teachers’ approaches, skills and resources
 “If I had a problem in my classroom, I can go to a one of us and ask, ‘How does your
teacher handle this? This is how my teacher handled it.’ Even though we were only in
one placement, we’re actually getting experience from all the other placements and
teachers because we had the time to share and talk about it.”
Value other’s solutions, anticipating PLCs
Value more than one person in the classroom, anticipating co-teaching
Developed strong sense of commitment to all students regardless of poverty or ethnicity
Master Teacher Perspectives
•



Initial perspectives
Work to organize
Teachers initially unclear of what was expected of them
Scheduling issues
•




Later perspectives
More comfortable with system
More willing to have student teachers & utilize them strategically
Appreciate university liaisons
Teachers greatly affected by PLCs, more flexible & student-focused, less autonomous
Both initial and later perspectives
Student teachers were prepared
Occasionally think a student teacher should not enter the profession
Expect student teachers to be willing to work
Student teachers aren’t ready to take over initially “They were very willing to learn, but they
were not quite competent to take charge,” but they are when they finish
 Responsibility to help train the next generation of teachers
 Want student teachers to experience start of school year
•




Principal Perspectives
Principals not as personally involved with student teachers
Student teachers are better prepared than they used to be
Student teachers willingly help wherever they are needed
Start on the first day
View student teachers as potential hires
“They’ll say anything to get a job interview, but it’s different when you get to see
who they are over the course of a semester. I’ll tell you, at the job fair, those who
have been placed in the cohort, even not in a placement at my school, you can tell
them above the others.”
• Partnership placements connect student teachers to the schools
 “When I did student teachers before, they just went to the classroom and the
university. They were more isolated. You just closed the door and taught. That
was it.”
• PLCs have improved teacher performance which benefits student teachers
 “Five years ago, the way we’d support a student teacher would be fairly basic
compared to today, but I think that is because of the capacity of our teachers in
our district has grown so much, not to just internalize innovative instruction, but
being a part of a PLC, and how to respond when kids aren’t learning.”
•
•
•
•
•

Theme: Institutionalization
of Collaboration
• Change from individualistic to collective
perspectives
• Family-like support and collaboration
• Student teacher initiation
• Reward systems and professional
development
• Accountability to non-supervisors
Change from Individualistic to
Collective Perspectives
•
•
•
•
Initially, teachers spoke in first person singular
 “I have an hour to do science and history.”
Later, teachers spoke in first person plural
 “We’ll be there to help them.”
Initially, teachers spoke about autonomy in their classrooms
 “I made my student teachers do everything. I made them come on Fridays sometimes. I
made them take over the morning work. I made them just do lessons. I would model it,
and I would watch them do it.”
Later, collective responsibility for all students
 “They’re all mine. All the 3rd graders are mine. I know all the 3rd graders. We (3rd grade
teachers) all take care of them.”
•
Student teachers experience collective perspective
 “We feel comfortable. So I’m comfortable asking any teacher around here for help with
anything, not just go to my master teacher.”
•
Teachers model collaboration, possibly from working together in PLCs
Family-like Support and Collaboration
•
•
Great camaraderie at all levels
Deep sense of support is like a “family”
 Student teacher “We’ve bonded. We’ve grown as one big family. We’re all here
to help each other.”
 Student teacher “If any one of us got a job. We’d be like, ‘That’s awesome for
you! Great job! Let’s go out and celebrate!’”
 Master teacher “Those student teachers have lunch together every day, and
they’re just like a big family.”
 Principal “You see them taking that ownership of being part of the school family
and environment, showing up to carnivals and Friday night movie nights with their
families, and they’re part of that school. That’s something they’re not asked to
do or have to do, but they take pride and when they come back and their job
duties are over, those kids model them like they’re rock stars because they miss
them.”
Student Teacher Initiation
•
Partnership student teachers experience accelerated growth in intensive context
 Exposed to many ideas from multiple teachers,
 Learn more through synergy of sharing
 “We’re actually, you could say, placed in a lot of different classrooms because we were able to share
our experiences . . .because some things that happened in the classroom are similar and some of it is
different, and then to know that the teachers were different themselves. . . hearing how other
teachers, other master teachers would handle a classroom management situation ‘my teacher did
the best thing today,’ and then we’d tell everybody and then we’d all make a little note, and we
have this list of good classroom ideas, and it’s impossible for me to go sit in 20 different classrooms,
but I got to observe what other teachers did.”
•
Master teachers view their tasks more collectively
 Strategically “deployed” “If the 4th grade teachers need help, we deploy student teachers there. We
use them strategically because we can always use extra help. They are always busy, and they learn
more about different grade levels that way.”
 Student teachers fully participate in the Professional Learning Communities, “Planning was really
done together.”
 Teachers value new ideas and information “They have new ideas and a different way of saying it.”
•
Student teachers assume a teacher’s identity earlier
 “I really liked this semester. We did a lot more team teaching rather than, ‘I’m the master teacher.
You’re the student teacher. We don’t really work together.’ This semester we’re both up there,
we’re both teaching, we’re both pulling students, doing the exact same work. You know, ‘you take
the low students, and I take the high students’ and really working together using two teachers
rather than ‘I’ll sit in the back and watch you.’ I really, really loved it!”
Reward Systems and Professional
Development
•



Initial ideas about rewards as externals
Some teachers expected payment, principals opposed this
University faculty offer teachers course work
Teachers feel responsible for training next generation of teachers
• Later ideas about what was valuable is internal
 Improving is rewarding, “I don’t want a pat on the back. I want to know, ‘OK, How can I
make this better? How can it make me a better teacher?’ because that’s my goal.”
 Sharing is rewarding, “Because we’re together all the time, we’ve learned who is strong in
what and who is weak in what, and so we were able to pair up . . You’re good in doing this
and I am good in doing this so we can work together.”
 Student teachers honored by grade level teachers choosing their lesson plans
 University faculty modeling lessons in teachers’ classes
 Teachers like extra help “I’m walking around helping and then I have suddenly 10 hands in
the air. It helped to have 3 adults walking around answering questions, giving that individual
help.”
 Teachers and principals like new ideas. “I also like the ideas that she has. We always try to
stay fresh and on top of things.”
 Teachers still feel responsible for training next generation of teachers
•
Affective rewards: Quality was a source of pride for all
Data Collection: Focus Groups
Spring 2006
• Student Teachers
 6 focus groups
 3 districts
 26 student teachers
• Master Teachers
 2 focus groups
 2 districts
 13 master teachers
• Principals
 1 focus groups
 2 districts
 3 principals
• University Director
 2 co-directors
Fall 2011, Spring and Fall 2012
• Student Teachers
 3 focus groups
 3 districts
 32 student teachers
• Master Teachers
 2 focus groups
 2 districts
 13 master teachers
• Principals
 1 focus groups
 1 district
 4 principals
• University Director
 1 director
Sanger’s success can be
attributed, unequivocally,
to our partnership with
Fresno State
Superintendent Marcus Johnson
2011 Superintendent of the Year
selectivity
2/26/2014
Contextual Demographics
Some unanticipated findings…
Family Income of Fresno State Graduates
(Indicated when applying to a CSU system university)
No differences in rating among the groups.
Correlation <.10 between income level and
principal rating.
Parental Education Level for Fresno State
Elementary Graduates
No differences in rating among the groups.
Correlation <.10 between education level
and principal rating of graduate.
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
2/26/2014
Supervisor Rating to SAT & GPA
2/26/2014
Supervisor Rating and CBEST
2/26/2014
Lessons
Learned
District Partnerships
School Partnerships
Cohorts
Co-Teaching
Spiraling Curriculum
Systematic Assessment
Supervision/Coordinator University Liaisons
Connection of coursework with fieldwork
2/26/2014