Evergreen's Red Square and beyond from the air. Eld Inlet is in the distance.

Introduction. The MIT program was granted re-accreditation after its last site visit in October of 2002. Data for the current accreditation visit, supplied on this MIT Accreditation webpage and in the Evidence Room, indicate that the program has successfully implemented all criteria related to Accountability. For a full discussion of this standard and the program’s use of data, please see the Institutional Report.

A key principle of education at The Evergreen State College is the on-going attention of faculty and staff to “review, assess and modify programs and services to fit changing needs of students and society” (retrieved from Evergreen's Mission Statement on 8/13/07). Assessment in the MIT program begins with a review of potential candidates through the collection and analysis of their college transcripts and endorsement worksheets, two written essays, WEST B and WEST E scores, and letters of recommendation. The Admissions Committee analyzes each application using a standard review sheet to ensure that decisions are equitable. Once applicants enter the program, assessment becomes an on-going part of their educational experiences.

The MIT program has, from its inception, used formative and summative assessments to support candidates’ work and to make decisions about continuation in, and graduation from, the program. Formative assessments are used to evaluate candidates’ work in order to identify areas that faculty may need to re-visit or strengthen and to help candidates set goals for their own growth and development. Formative assessments include rubric and narrative feedback from faculty and peers and candidates’ self-assessments on a variety of program work including in-progress seminar and master’s papers, lesson and unit plans, and teacher knowledge and skills. The MIT Student Teaching rubric is used during practicum and student teaching experiences to provide candidates with clear and specific language through which to identify areas of strength and ways to improve their planning, instruction, classroom management, and professional development. Summative assessments in the form of quarterly faculty narrative evaluations, end-of-student-teaching rubrics, the Pedagogy Assessment, and candidates’ self-assessments provide information about knowledge and skills that have been attained.

One of the conceptual frameworks of the MIT program is called Developmentally Appropriate Teaching and Learning. The MIT faculty understand that research in this domain applies as much to the development of teacher candidates as to the development of children and youth. Thus, the assessment system is intended to provide many opportunities for candidates to explore, develop, and try out new knowledge and skills; receive feedback from faculty, their colleagues, and P-12 teachers; and then try new or modified strategies with previous experiences and feedback to inform their choices. It is also intended to help candidates to set and articulate professional development goals for themselves.

Based on a wide range of assessment data, successful candidates are recommended for Residency Certification and for the MIT degree. However, because faculty in the MIT program have a serious responsibility to the children and youth in our public schools, candidates who are unable to meet the stated criteria for program completion receive neither the master’s degree nor recommendation for certification.

The MIT program has also, from its inceptions, sought feedback from the PEAB, candidates, alumni, and P-12 teachers and principals about strengths of the program and ways the program can be improved. Information gathered while program cohorts are in progress, from new program completers, from mentor teachers and principals, from alumni who have taught for three or more years, and from EBI data are used to evaluate program strengths and areas that need attention.

Data from surveys, EBI, the MIT Student Teaching Rubric, and the Pedagogy Assessment are electronically stored, aggregated, and analyzed. Narrative evaluations of candidates’ work, faculty assessments of their own work, and candidates’ evaluations of faculty work are kept in faculty portfolios, which are available for review. EALR projects (positive impact on student learning) are archived by MIT administrative staff.

Assessment is, and has always been, an integral part of the program, and data is used to inform faculty and program decisions. Continued efforts are underway to further improve the assessment system and use of data.

Criteria are listed below. Please click on the links below to see evidence for the criteria.

MIT student-teacher Bailey works with students in a math class.


Standard II: Accountability

Building on the mission to prepare educators who demonstrate a positive impact on student learning, the following evidence shall be evaluated to determine whether each preparation program is in compliance with the program approval standards of WAC 181-78A-255:


A. Learner Expectations

Submit for approval to the Professional Educator Standards Board a performance-based program for the preparation of teachers, administrators, and educational staff associates that identifies:

Criteria A(1a)

A comprehensive set of learner expectations for each preparation program. Learner expectations reflect professional, state, and institutional standards.


B. The Assessment System

Criteria B(1b)

The unit has an assessment system that reflects the conceptual framework(s) and state standards and collects and analyzes data on qualifications, candidate and graduate performances, unit operations and program quality.

Criteria B(1c)

Explicit connections between professional, state and institutional standards, and candidate assessments.


C. Use of Data for Program Improvement

Criteria C(2)

During the first year following program completion, solicit feedback from program completers employed in education, and their supervisors, regarding the program’s effectiveness.

Criteria C(3)

Maintain placement records for all program completers during the first year following program completion.


D. Positive Impact on Student Learning

Criteria D(4)

Candidates and program faculty understand the meaning of the term “positive impact on student learning” and know how to document when positive impact on student learning has occurred.

Criteria D(5)

Collect and maintain exemplar candidate work samples that document a positive impact on student learning.