Certification Examination Preparation

Raising Texas Teachers is a Charles Butt Foundation initiative aims to improve the status of the teaching profession by enhancing the recruitment of a talented and diverse teacher workforce through the Charles Butt Scholarship for Aspiring Teachers, supporting retention of teachers in the classroom, and partnering with university-based teacher preparation programs to raise the overall quality of teacher preparation across the state by promoting continuous improvement in the field. 

Through the Foundation’s partnerships with teacher preparation programs, faculty teams identify common areas for improvement and form cross-university groups called Educator Preparation Program Improvement Communities (EPPICs). Each EPPIC spent two years listening to mentor teachers, teacher candidates, and other stakeholders, testing interventions on their own campuses, and learning from what other universities were finding.

Each EPPIC shared a write-up of their findings. The post below shares what one of these EPPICs discovered. To learn more, click here. 

Challenge Across Universities

At TSU, disparate survey and assessment methods created a need for centralized, standardized processes.

At the UTEP, the urgency of this work extended beyond internal systems to recruitment and program access. Through completing a continuous improvement cycle including planning an intervention, doing the activity, studying the results, and acting on the data, UTEP identified a need to more effectively connect with potential candidates, particularly paraprofessionals and instructional aides in partner districts, to increase enrollment in high-needs certification areas.

At TAMUT, this issue emerged as a challenge with accessing and using data in real time. While data was being collected, it was not always easily translated into actionable insights for instructors, limiting opportunities for immediate instructional adjustments.

Similarly, at WTAMU University, data existed for reporting but wasn’t returned fast enough to influence course improvements.

Each institution tested different changes based on local needs and capacity.

• TAMUT developed an automated workflow connecting Microsoft Forms directly to Power BI dashboards, allowing instructors in courses to monitor student learning outcomes in real time and adjust instruction accordingly.
• UTEP took a different angle, testing whether direct presentations to paraprofessionals in partner districts would increase applications to the post-baccalaureate residency program. These presentations covered program overviews, application requirements, and time for questions, with attendance tracked through sign-in sheets and follow-up application data. UTEP also worked on streamlining data entry by redesigning their data sharing tool, collapsing multiple spreadsheets into a single, more efficient system for all stakeholders.
• Tarleton and West Texas explored similar themes: simplifying data systems, improving communication between stakeholders, and finding ways to centralize data for easier decision-making and reporting. Both focused on implementing new data portals designed to improve access to data. Tarleton implemented a pilot of the new portal in two courses, while West Texas A&M began their implementation with a survey to assess the data needs of faculty and staff. 

While each university identified a different data challenge to work on, one of the most valuable parts of this work was learning across institutions. Each campus approached the problem from a different angle, which broadened the group’s collective understanding.

Over time, their thinking evolved from focusing on isolated solutions to considering the full data lifecycle: collection, entry, analysis, visualization, and use. We began to recognize that improving one part of the system without addressing the others limits overall effectiveness.

Each campus collected evidence aligned to its change idea, but across campuses, they paid attention to common indicators such as time saved, ease of use, accessibility of data, and the ability to support decision-making. They also tracked challenges, including technical barriers, access issues, and communication gaps.

The data suggested that streamlining systems,whether through automation or simplification, improves both efficiency and user experience. However, it also revealed that implementation requires ongoing refinement and support.

Based on their experience, the EPPIC recommends that programs begin by simplifying and streamlining their data collection processes before moving toward more advanced systems like automation and dashboards. Clean, efficient input systems are essential for meaningful output.

One key lesson learned is that improving data systems is not just a technical challenge—it is an organizational one. Success depends on communication, collaboration, and alignment across stakeholders.

Programs should plan for ongoing support and training, particularly when implementing new technologies. Without this, even well-designed systems can become difficult to sustain.