CAEP ID: 10318 AACTE SID: 3210
Institution: Montana State University - Bozeman 
Unit: College of Education, Health & Human Development 

Section 1. EPP Profile

After reviewing and/or updating the Educator Preparation Provider's (EPP's) profile in AIMS, check the box to indicate that the information available is accurate.

1.1 In AIMS, the following information is current and accurate...

 
  Agree Disagree
1.1.1 Contact person Radio button on Radio button off
1.1.2 EPP characteristics Radio button on Radio button off
1.1.3 Program listings Radio button on Radio button off
 

 

1.2 [For EPPs seeking Continuing CAEP Accreditation]. Please provide a link to your webpage that demonstrates accurate representation of your Initial-Licensure Level and/or Advanced-Level programs as reviewed and accredited by CAEP (NCATE or TEAC). 
https://www.montana.edu/education/accreditation/TEaccreditation/iando.html

Section 2. Program Completers

2.1 How many candidates completed programs that prepared them to work in preschool through grade 12 settings during Academic Year 2019-2020 ? 

Enter a numeric value for each textbox.

  2.1.1 Number of completers in programs leading to initial teacher certification or licensure1   150
     
  2.1.2 Number of completers in advanced programs or programs leading to a degree, endorsement, or some other credential that prepares the holder to serve in P-12 schools (Do not include those completers counted above.)2    
    124
     
  Total number of program completers   274

1 For a description of the scope for Initial-Licensure Programs, see Policy 3.01 in the Accreditation Policy Manual

2 For a description of the scope for Advanced-Level Programs, see Policy 3.02 in the Accreditation Policy Manual 

Section 3. Substantive Changes

Have any of the following substantive changes occurred at your educator preparation provider or institution/organization during the 2019-2020 academic year? 

3.1 Changes in the established mission or objectives of the institution/organization or the EPP

3.2 Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership of the EPP.

3.3 The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential level different from those that were offered when most recently accredited

3.4 The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure, in terms of either content or delivery, from those that were offered when most recently accredited

3.5 A contract with other providers for direct instructional services, including any teach-out agreements

Any change that means the EPP no longer satisfies accreditation standards or requirements:
3.6 Change in regional accreditation status

3.7 Change in state program approval

Section 4. Display of Annual Reporting Measures.

  Annual Reporting Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 | A.5.4)  
  Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4) Outcome Measures  
  1. Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1)  5. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels)  
  2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2) 6. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced levels)  
  3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones
(Component 4.3 | A.4.1) 7. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)  
  4. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2) 8. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced levels)  

4.1 Provide a link or links that demonstrate data relevant to each of the Annual Reporting Measures are public-friendly and prominently displayed on the educator preparation provider's website.

  Link:

https://www.montana.edu/education/accreditation/TEaccreditation/iando.html

  
       
  Description of data
accessible via link:		 Annual Reporting Measures  

 

Tag the Annual Reporting Measure(s) represented in the link above to the appropriate preparation level(s) (initial and/or advanced, as offered by the EPP) and corresponding measure number.

Level \ Annual Reporting Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Initial-Licensure Programs Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked Checkbox checked
Advanced-Level Programs   Checkbox unchecked Checkbox unchecked Checkbox unchecked Checkbox unchecked Checkbox unchecked Checkbox unchecked

 

4.2 Summarize data and trends from the data linked above, reflecting on the prompts below.

 

What has the provider learned from reviewing its Annual Reporting Measures over the past three years?

Discuss any emerging, long-term, expected, or unexpected trends?
Discuss any programmatic/provider-wide changes being planned as a result of these data?
Are benchmarks available for comparison?

Are measures widely shared? How? With whom? 

  

After four years of continuous improvement work in preparation for our CAEP/Montana Board of Public Education Accreditation site visit in Fall 2022, we note the following trends:

1) Nearly all of our students (across nineteen teaching majors/minors) meet or exceed formative and summative benchmarks in content and pedagogical knowledge.

2) Faculty and stakeholders who examine the data indicate that on the whole, students are adequately prepared to teach upon program completion.
3) Program completers and employers consistently report that our TEP does not adequately prepare teacher candidates for effective classroom management.

4) Program completers and employers consistently report that our TEP does not adequately prepare teacher candidates for teaching English learners and incorporating Montana’s Indian Education for All mandate.
5) Field supervisors and cooperating teachers consistently highlight concerns related to professionalism in field experiences.
6) Our three main areas for program improvement are preparation for learning differences (InTASC Standard 2), effective classroom management (InTASC Standard 3), and teacher professionalism (Danielson Domain 4f).


As a result of our analysis, we implemented the following program improvements:


1) We spent 2017-2018 carefully constructing crosswalks between the 2007 Danielson Framework, InTASC, and Montana PEPPS standards. In 2018-2019, we analyzed all formative assessments (Signature Assignments) and rubrics for validity and alignment to our crosswalk and program/course learning outcomes. The revised and re-aligned formative assessments were implemented in Fall 2019 and we are currently analyzing four semesters’ worth of formative assessments in preparation for our Fall 2022 site visit.


2) Beginning Fall 2019, all students now receive content formerly addressed in EDU 408 Professional Issues Seminar in EDU 495 Student Teaching Seminar. This is to better address professionalism and to prepare completers for the job market. Previously, only certain majors required EDU 408. (Danielson Domain 4f)


3) Beginning Fall 2020, all programs leading to initial teacher licensure incorporate the following program learning outcome: Teacher candidates will act in accordance with the professional and ethical standards, norms, and dispositions of the district within which they are working, the university within which they are learning, and the profession of teaching. The learning outcome codifies the requirement in our academic programs a will allow us to hold instructors accountable for incorporating this content into all courses and field experiences leading to more intentional teaching of professionalism. (Danielson Domain 4f)


4) Beginning Fall 2020, all students now complete a classroom management course. Previously, this course was not required for secondary and K-12 teaching majors. (InTASC Standard 3).


5) Beginning Fall 2020, students accepted into the elementary education teacher preparation program must complete EDU 411: ESL: Teaching Culturally/Linguistically Diverse K-12 Students with plans to require the course in all teaching majors. Previously, this course was an elective. (InTASC Standard 2)

Our 2020 Impact/Outcome Measures are prominently displayed at http://www.montana.edu/education/accreditation/TEaccreditation/index.html


We regularly share our analysis and continuous improvement efforts with a variety of stakeholders:

  • Partner school district-level administrators
  • Employers/clinical site hosts (cooperating teachers)
  • Program completers 
  • TEP instructional/clinical faculty

  • K-12/secondary major faculty (UTEC)

  • University administration

  • State decision makers and agencies (including OPI and BPE)
  • All Montana EPPs 

 

Section 5. Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations

Summarize EPP activities and the outcomes of those activities as they relate to correcting the areas cited in the last Accreditation Action/Decision Report. 

This section is blank because MSU—Bozeman's Teacher Education Program had no Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations cited in the last Accreditation Action/Decision Report.

Section 6. Continuous Improvement

CAEP Standard 5

The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates' and completers' positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers' impact on P-12 student learning and development.

CAEP Standard 5, Component 5.3

The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.

6.1 Summarize any data-driven EPP-wide or programmatic modifications, innovations, or changes planned, worked on, or completed in the last academic year. This is an opportunity to share targeted continuous improvement efforts your EPP is proud of. Focus on one to three major efforts the EPP made and the relationship among data examined, changes, and studying the results of those changes.

  • Describe how the EPP regularly and systematically assessed its performance against its goals or the CAEP standards.
  • What innovations or changes did the EPP implement as a result of that review?
  • How are progress and results tracked? How will the EPP know the degree to which changes are improvements? 

The following questions were created from the March 2016 handbook for initial-level programs sufficiency criteria for standard 5, component 5.3 and may be helpful in cataloguing continuous improvement.

  • What quality assurance system data did the provider review?

  • What patterns across preparation programs (both strengths and weaknesses) did the provider identify?
  • How did the provider use data/evidence for continuous improvement?

  • How did the provider test innovations?

  • What specific examples show that changes and program modifications can be linked back to evidence/data?
  • How did the provider document explicit investigation of selection criteria used for Standard 3 in relation to candidate progress and completion?

  • How did the provider document that data-driven changes are ongoing and based on systematic assessment of performance, and/or that innovations result in overall positive trends of improvement for EPPs, their candidates, and P-12 students?

The following thoughts are derived from the September 2017 handbook for advanced-level programs

How was stakeholders' feedback and input sought and incorporated into the evaluation, research, and decision-making activities? 

 

Describe how the EPP regularly and systematically assessed its performance against its goals or the CAEP standards.

Our TEP clinical/instructional faculty attend biweekly program meetings where we present data and subsequent analysis which leads to discussions, plans for continuous improvement, and implementation of those improvements.

What innovations or changes did the EPP implement as a result of that review?

Our major effort in 2019-2020 was the development of a program-level learning outcome in support of professionalism. In Fall 2019 our program meetings focused on identifying issues and concerns related to professionalism, ways that instructors teach and assess the content throughout coursework and field experiences, and finally, advancing three potential learning outcomes for a faculty vote. The chosen learning outcome was: Teacher candidates will act in accordance with the professional and ethical standards, norms, and dispositions of the district within which they are working, the university within which they are learning, and the profession of teaching. Department and college administrators then met with university legal counsel and the Dean of Students to create a comprehensive accountability process for students, and instructors are working on better incorporating the learning outcome into all TEP courses. Please see the attached document, TEP Student Support Process.

How are progress and results tracked? How will the EPP know the degree to which changes are improvements?

The MSU-Bozeman Teacher Education Program (TEP) Program Assessment System (PAS) draws upon assessments of students at various points in their program. These assessments provide data for each teaching major, as well as the aggregate, to identify TEP elements to be improved. The PAS will be replaced by Via by Watermark in Fall 2021, allowing faculty and staff to visualize and analyze course- and program-level data on demand through seamless integration into our learning management system, Brightspace by D2L.

In the past, assessments have been aligned with the program’s own conceptual framework. Our TEP re-affirmed using Charlotte Danielson’s 2007 Framework for Teaching for clinical experience evaluation in Spring 2017. We also more intentionally aligned the TEP with InTASC standards and the state of Montana’s Professional Educator Preparation Program Standards outlined in the Administrative Rules of Montana. This work took a full two years and was completed in Spring 2019.

Data Analysis for Continuous Improvement

Assessment scores are collected by the MSU Department of Education’s assessment coordinator and made available to faculty and administration for analysis to assist in the process of decision making for improvement of the TEP. TEP instructional/clinical faculty conduct regular, systematic analysis of all data through biweekly meetings, semesterly University Teacher Education Council meetings, and reports of program change results to all stakeholders) under the direction of the Director of Accreditation and Operations/Department Head.

Our current TEP assessments (all majors) are:

Signature Assignments

These assignments assess in eight areas: diversity, development, pedagogy, communication/instructional media, planning, assessment, relationships, and reflection. In a typical semester, approximately thirty instructors deliver signature assignments in courses taken by pre-admittance students and by admitted teacher candidates. The Signature Assignments (SA) were carefully improved and re-aligned to the InTASC/PEPPS standards in 2018-2019 with implementation in Fall 2019. The rubrics for each SA were validated in Spring 2019 with implementation in Fall 2019.

Danielson-based Observation Tool

The final field experience assessment of the student teaching experience is completed by the cooperating teacher and by the University field supervisor in a collaborative, mentoring partnership. This performance assessment was redesigned, aligned to the Danielson Framework, and validated with implementation in Fall 2017.

Praxis II Content Exams

National Praxis II Content Exams delivered by the Educational Testing Service are taken by our teacher candidates generally around the time of program completion and are included in the PAS as an assessment of content knowledge.

Reflective Educator Project

An inquiry project during student teaching that emphasizes growth through research into one’s own early teaching practices and the effects of those practices on students. The REP requires student teachers to produce a series of artifacts culminating in the research poster and formal research presentation at the final student teaching seminar.

Completer Survey

In collaboration with our stakeholders and all Montana EPPs, the Montana Council of Deans of Education (MCDE) created and validated a 20-question Likert scale survey aligned with State Standards per our state protocol agreement with CAEP. This survey was designed to provide data regarding completers’ perspectives on their satisfaction with the TEP and their preparedness for the classroom.

Employer Survey

In collaboration with our stakeholders all Montana EPPs, the Montana Council of Deans of Education (MCDE) created and validated a 20-question Likert scale survey aligned with State Standards per our state protocol agreement with CAEP. This survey was designed to provide independent assessment from K-12 administrators regarding the degree to which Completer performance meets employer expectations in the areas related to TEP claims and to provide information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the program and its Completers. *Survey results are reported in the aggregate for all Montana EPP completers. 

 

Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the data or changes apply.

  2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators
2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences

3.5 Candidate positive impacts on P-12 students

3.6 Candidates understand the expectation of the profession
4.3 Employer satisfaction

4.4 Completer satisfaction

5.1 Effective quality assurance system that monitors progress using multiple measures

5.2 Quality assurance system relies on measures yielding reliable, valid, and actionable data.
5.3 Results for continuous program improvement are used

5.4 Measures of completer impact are analyzed, shared and used in decision-making

5.5 Relevant stakeholders are involved in program evaluation

A.1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

A.1.2 Professional Responsibilities
A.2.2 Clinical Experiences		  

 

Upload data results or documentation of data-driven changes.

Paper ClipTEP_Student_Support_Process.pdf

6.2 Would the provider be willing to share highlights, new initiatives, assessments, research, scholarship, or service activities during a CAEP Conference or in other CAEP Communications?

Radio button selectedYes    Radio button not selected No

6.3 Optional Comments

Section 8: Preparer's Authorization

Preparer's authorization.By checking the box below, I indicate that I am authorized by the EPP to complete the 2021 EPP Annual Report.

Checkbox checked I am authorized to complete this report.

Report Preparer's Information

Name:   Ann Ewbank  
       
Position   Department Head  
       
Phone:   4069945788
  
       
E-mail:   ann.ewbank@montana.edu  

 

I understand that all the information that is provided to CAEP from EPPs seeking initial accreditation, continuing accreditation or having completed the accreditation process is considered the property of CAEP and may be used for training, research and data review. CAEP reserves the right to compile and issue data derived from accreditation documents.

CAEP Accreditation Policy

Policy 6.01 Annual Report

An EPP must submit an Annual Report to maintain accreditation or accreditation-eligibility. The report is opened for data entry each year in January. EPPs are given 90 days from the date of system availability to complete the report.

CAEP is required to collect and apply the data from the Annual Report to:

  1. Monitor whether the EPP continues to meet the CAEP Standards between site reviews.

  2. Review and analyze stipulations and any AFIs submitted with evidence that they were addressed.

  3. Monitor reports of substantive changes.

  4. ]Collect headcount completer data, including for distance learning programs.

  5. Monitor how the EPP publicly reports candidate performance data and other consumer information on its website.

CAEP accreditation staff conduct annual analysis of AFIs and/or stipulations and the decisions of the Accreditation Council to assess consistency.

Failure to submit an Annual Report will result in referral to the Accreditation Council for review. Adverse action may result.

Policy 8.05 Misleading or Incorrect Statements

The EPP is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of all information submitted by the EPP for accreditation purposes, including program reviews, self-study reports, formative feedback reports and addendums and site review report responses, and information made available to prospective candidates and the public. In particular, information displayed by the EPP pertaining to its accreditation and Title II decision, term, consumer information, or candidate performance (e.g., standardized test results, job placement rates, and licensing examination rates) must be accurate and current.

When CAEP becomes aware that an accredited EPP has misrepresented any action taken by CAEP with respect to the EPP and/or its accreditation, or uses accreditation reports or materials in a false or misleading manner, the EPP will be contacted and directed to issue a corrective communication. Failure to correct misleading or inaccurate statements can lead to adverse action. 

Checkbox checkedAcknowledge