2.1.c

2.1.c Use of Data for Program Improvement

Summarize processes, timelines, activities, and outcomes derived from use of data for program
improvement of candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.

Admission data for the initial programs is analyzed and discussed first by the CARE (Committee for
Admission and Retention in Education) committee and then the department twice a year, following the
admission deadlines of October 1 and February 15. CARE policies are reviewed at these meetings and
revised annually should the data indicate a need to do so. For example, during the 2014-2015 academic
year, the CARE committee voted to allow an All But One (ABO) level of admission. This was piloted to
allow more flexibility for entry into program while maintaining the same standards of quality.
Candidates were admitted to the program in a controlled manner with limitations and allowed to take
courses for one semester within which period they had to complete the one missing requirement. A
faculty member was appointed to serve as the ABO advisor to monitor candidate progress. During the
same time period, it was determined that our candidates needed more exposure to students of diverse
backgrounds. Therefore, CARE admission requirements starting Spring 2017 will require that all
applicants document 50 service hours, which will include working with students of diverse backgrounds.

Midpoint data are gathered and discussed by the CAEP coordinator and the Assessment Committee once
a year, with data discussed by the EPP at one of the annual retreats. The EPP follows a cycle of
administration of assessment, followed by data analyses, discussion, and plans for programmatic
improvements. Previously, data were being discussed in program meetings and annual retreats but will
from 2016-2017 onwards, be systematically discussed at three pre-planned EPP-wide retreats. Clinical
assessments from previous years led to the establishment of the Pre-Student teaching experience to
provide elementary and secondary education candidates more time in the P-12 classrooms and to prepare
them better for student teaching. Additionally, to ensure that assessments are EPP-wide and consistently
implemented and evaluated, the Core I, II and III set of portfolios were developed and the adhoc
assessment committee was established to monitor the pilot implementation of the portfolio.

Student teaching data continue to be reviewed at the annual May retreat both at the EPP level and
disaggregated by programs. During the most recent retreat, data from student teaching supported the
changes made during the last academic year to include greater focus on differentiated instruction. From a
mean score of 2.90 in Fall 2014 for item 4.5 (using differentiated instruction) which was below
proficiency, the mean score in Fall 2015 increased to 3.19 which was meeting proficiency. One item that
continues to need programmatic and EPP-wide attention is 5.4 (using a comprehensive set of data that
provides depth and breath of understanding of student achievement). The mean score in Fall 2015 was
2.94, which was higher than the mean score in Fall 2014 of 2.90, but still below proficiency. The EPP
had included data-based decision making assignments and activities in Core III and Core IV (student
teaching). It was clear that candidates needed more sustained focus and deeper attention to this important
topic. Therefore EPP faculty made plans to incorporate data literacy and data-based instructional
planning and assessment strategies starting from Core I. Core II activities will focus on the use of SRBI
(the Connecticut version of RTI) principles for P-12 student data analysis and differentiated instruction.
Core III and IV will continue to integrate the use of data for differentiation with Core IV using
classroom data to determine differentiated goals for individual students and measuring effectiveness
through pre/post data. This will be implemented in EPP courses starting in Fall 2016.

Return to Standard 2 Main Page

Return to Institutional Report Main Page