�ձ�av��Ƶ

Completer Case Study 2024-25

Purpose and Guiding Question

Because statewide growth percentiles and commercial benchmark tests are not made available to the educator preparation providers in the state of South Dakota, the educator preparation provider elected to conduct a focused case study of five completers for whom classroom evidence could be secured. Volunteers were solicited from alumni surveys.

The guiding question was:

To what extent do these �ձ�av��Ƶ teacher education graduates accelerate PreK-12 student learning, and how consistently do they demonstrate effective instructional practice?

All districts require teachers to complete a Student Learning Objectives process and participate in two Danielson Framework for Teaching observations each year.

Evidence Sources and Benchmarks

PreK-12 Learning (Standard 4.1)

SLO attainment: Teachers verified the percentage of their students who meet growth targets and categorize results into high growth (86-100% attained), expected growth (65-85% attained) and low growth (less than 65% attained).

Teaching Effectiveness (Standard 4.2)

Danielson Domains 2 and 3: Teachers verified their results on evaluation framework. District proficiency cut score is three (proficient) on a four‑point scale.

Focus Group Discussion (Standard 4.1 and 4.3)

Qualitative data: Teachers answered the question, “How effective did you feel you were as a teacher impacting student learning?” and “How well did you feel your teacher education program prepared you to be an impactful educator?”

Findings

Impact on Student Learning
All five teachers met or surpassed the SLO benchmark in both goals, achieving high growth (86-100% attained); the group average was 89%. In high school English, Completer 3 saw student scores in writing raise by 26%. In math, students in Completer 2’s classroom gained on average 33% points on algebraic reasoning. Completer 1 saw increases in literacy scores for first graders, an average increase of 35% from prescreening. Completer 4 saw gains on SLOs related to livestock identification of 29%. Completer 5 noted a net increase of 38% on SLOs related to finance. These results indicate that �ձ�av��Ƶ graduates moved a substantial majority of their pupils beyond locally expected growth.

Teaching Effectiveness
Danielson ratings were uniformly strong: two teachers were proficient and three distinguished in Domain 2 (classroom environment) while all five were distinguished in Domain 3 (instruction).

Focus Group Discussion
The five completers participated in a 45-minute, semistructured focus group interview conducted via Zoom. After an inductive thematic analysis of the verbatim transcript, three salient themes emerged, providing an additional line of evidence for their impact on PreK-12 learning (4.1) and their satisfaction with the program (4.3).

• Data-informed instruction accelerates learning
  • All completers described routine use of formative checks, exit tickets and SLO progress monitoring to adjust instruction. Participants linked �ձ�av��Ƶ coursework (assessment literacy; backward design) to concrete practices such as reteaching in small groups, flexible grouping and criterion-referenced rubrics. Several noted that these practices were helpful in moving students from partial mastery to mastery during the SLO cycle in early literacy, algebraic reasoning, CTE performance tasks and writing. Completers noted more time in learning how to work with small groups would be beneficial.
• Clinical readiness in planning, relationships and instructional moves
  • Completers credited extended field experiences with confidence in Domain 2 (classroom environment) and Domain 3 (instruction). They cited strengths in establishing routines, using discussion protocols and checks for understanding, and differentiating tasks by readiness/interest. They reported that cooperating-teacher feedback and �ձ�av��Ƶ’s Danielson-aligned observations made expectations transparent and transferable across contexts. Completers noted discussing the SLO process during preparation and practicing it in assignments, but they wanted more opportunity to create them earlier in the program.
• Targeted needs: Small-group instruction and MTSS collaboration
  • While reporting strong overall preparation, elementary and middle completers consistently asked for deeper practice with (a) structuring and managing concurrent small-group rotations, (b) collaborating within multitier system of supports/response to intervention and with special education and English language specialists and (c) curating high-quality materials for Tier 2/3 interventions. Secondary teachers also requested more applied strategies for writing across the curriculum and progress-monitoring tools aligned to content standards.

Interpretation and Alignment to CAEP Standard 4

Standard 4.1 (Impact on PreK-12 student learning)

Multiple measures indicate positive impact. All five teachers met the high growth SLO benchmark (≥86% of students attaining targets), with a group average of 89%. Content-specific gains (e.g., plus 35% early literacy screening growth; plus 33% in algebraic reasoning; plus 26% writing performance; plus 29% livestock identification; plus 38% personal finance outcomes) demonstrate practical significance across grade levels and settings. Focus-group testimony explains how these gains were achieved — through systematic use of formative data, small-group reteaching and standards-aligned rubrics — strengthening the causal chain from preparation to practice to learning.

Standard 4.2 (Indicators of teaching effectiveness)

Danielson results were uniformly strong: 100% of completers were at least proficient in Domain 2 (with 60% distinguished), and 100% were distinguished in Domain 3. These exceed the district proficiency cut score of 3. Focus-group narratives align with these ratings, highlighting classroom climate routines, active engagement strategies and responsive questioning that map directly to 2a-2d and 3b-3d components.

Standard 4.3 (Satisfaction of completers)

Completers expressed high satisfaction with �ձ�av��Ƶ’s preparation in assessment literacy, planning and instructional delivery, noting clear transfer from coursework and residencies to first- and second-year practice. They also articulated actionable areas to strengthen (small-group management; mutlitier system of supports teaming; targeted intervention design), providing specific guidance for curriculum refinement. This pattern — high satisfaction coupled with specific improvement requests — reflects constructive professional self-assessment and supports continuous improvement.

Evidence is convergent across measures (SLO attainment, Danielson domains and qualitative themes) and consistent across rural, suburban and urban placements in elementary, secondary and career and technical education settings. Together, the case evidence supports the inference that �ձ�av��Ƶ preparation contributes to graduates’ positive impact on PreK-12 learning and effective teaching practice, satisfying Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation Standard 4 expectations for completer effectiveness and satisfaction.

Limitations and Continuous Improvement Actions

Because this study only includes five completers, statistical generalization is limited. The educator preparation provider will continue to conduct these case studies to increase our body of data on completer effectiveness and the satisfaction of employers and completers. Faculty will also strengthen coursework on results from this case study, such as in small group instruction, to expand the positive impact documented here.