3.2

3.2 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review

Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.

The following citations were given for Standard 3 as Areas for Improvement:
1. The unit does not provide clarity and consistency of expectations for clinical practice for candidates.
a. In an effort to clarify the clinical practice for candidates and to maintain consistency of expectations,
the Eastern EPP has completed revised and developed a new Clinical Experience and Student Teaching
Handbook. Herein the details relating to the scope of the field and clinical experiences,
including student teaching, policies and procedures for implementation of these experiences, roles of the
student teacher, cooperating teacher and other school personnel have been clarified.

b. Key unit assessments have been identified, cutting across all programs. While EPP assessments
consisted of CARE admission, clinical and student teaching observation data, between 2014 and 2016,
the EPP refined its assessment system to ensure consistency, efficiency and culture of evidence-based,
continuous improvement. The revised system is comprised of three portfolios occurring during clinical
experiences for Initial, undergraduate students. CORE I, CORE II, and CORE III portfolios consist of a
collection of assignments that develop candidates' ability to collect classroom/school learning data,
reflect on data and planning and practice, enhance their classroom management skills, and to advance
their instructional acumen across diverse setting. These EPP assessments occur alongside data collected
by trained university supervisors (US) during clinical observations. As with the COREs themselves,
each portfolio is designed to demonstrate progressional development of the teacher candidate.
i. CORE I. This clinical experience comprises six (6) competencies assessed by the US (effective fall
2016) and five (5) classroom-based assignments. These assignments collectively make up the CORE I
portfolio. They are: Classroom learning profile, classroom management tasks and reflection, classroom
observation focusing on student engagement, classroom observation focusing on content learning, and a
Looking Backwards Looking Forward (LBLF). The LBLF assignment requires candidates to reflect on
their CORE experience, examine their strengthens and challenges aligned with EPP standards, and to set
goals for the following CORE. Initial data from the pilot LBLF was collected fall 2015.
ii. CORE II. This clinical experience builds on the previous CORE, whereby candidates demonstrate
evidence for eight (8) competencies assessed by the US during observations (effective fall 2016).
Additionally, candidates will provide evidence of actualizing goals from the previous LBLF. The CORE
II portfolio consists of three assignments. They are: the application of Scientific Research-Based
Interventions (SRBI), also known as Response to Intervention (RTI) for and individual or small group of
students, classroom management tasks and philosophy of classroom management, and a LBLF to
include goal setting for the following CORE (pilot spring 2017).
iii. CORE III. This clinical experience builds on the previous CORE, whereby candidates demonstrate
evidence for sixteen (16) competencies assessed by the US during observations (already in effect).
These are a subset of the thirty (30) competencies assessed during CORE IV also known as student
teaching. Additionally, candidates will demonstrate evidence of actualizing goals from the previous
LBLF. The CORE III portfolio consists of four assignments. They are: School-wide learning profile, coteaching,
the implementation of three differentiated lesson, and a LBLF to include goal setting for the
following CORE (pilot fall 2017).
iv. CORE IV. This clinical is also known as student teaching. This CORE also builds on the previous
one, whereby candidates demonstrate evidence for all thirty (30) student teaching competencies assessed
by the US during observations (already in effect). Additionally, candidates will demonstrate evidence of
actualizing goals from the previous LBLF (pilot spring 2018). Candidates complete the Student Impact
Portfolio or edTPA which was initially piloted spring 2016 as part of a state-wide initiative.
c. The Coordinator of Educational and Clinical Experiences conducts an orientation at the end of each
semester for all student teachers for the upcoming semester. During this orientation, the Coordinator
guides the candidates through important professional responsibilities and expectations, including their
roles as student teachers. Prior to this orientation, candidates have already been assigned a placement and
candidates are expected to have completed a successful interview with the cooperating teacher. At this
orientation, candidates meet with their assigned university supervisor and discuss and establish a
timeline for observations. The orientation provides clarity for the candidates and because it is completed
as a whole group exercise followed by small group meetings with candidates and their university
supervisors, there is consistency in procedures.

d. From Fall 2016, the TK20 administrator will be offering orientations to both faculty and candidates on
TK20 issues. While the database has been in place for a few semesters now and both faculty and
candidates have been utilizing the system, feedback from faculty (retreat meeting in May 2016) and
candidates (end of program/exit surveys) has emphasized the need for dedicated workshops. The first
one will be conducted on August 26, 2016 for faculty. Thereafter, mini-workshops will be conducted for
candidates on completing CARE applications, clinical and student teaching applications and uploading
assessments. Upcoming topics for faculty (as identified by faculty at the May 2016 retreat) will include
management of data, evaluations of assessment, access to candidate information and other topics as
needed.

e. The Coordinator of Educational and Clinical Experiences has been making periodic visits to Core I, II
and III classes to directly inform the candidates about the next steps in their clinical expectations
including applications and any protocol related to clinical site visits. From Fall 2016, this will be
established as a planned recurring event so that candidates can understand the procedure and follow it
seamlessly, Core after Core.

2. The unit provides little evidence to ensure all candidates have the opportunity to demonstrate their
abilities to help all students learn.
a. To enhance our candidates' experience with diverse students, all applicants to our program starting
from Spring 2017 must document 50 service hours working with students of diverse background. This
experience will be coordinated with the Center for Community Engagement. Of the 50 service hours, 15
hours must be completed with diverse learner populations (i.e. low SES, reading ability not on grade
level, students with special needs, after school Title II programs); One of the recommendations for the
CARE application will be from a supervisor of this diverse experience attesting to the candidate's ability
and competency with diverse students.

b. Our clinical placement policies (see Clinical Handbook) ensure that our candidates experience
diversity in classroom settings, both in terms of grade levels and diverse backgrounds of students. The
Office of Educational and Clinical Experiences (OECE) maintains an updated database of clinical
partners based on (among other categories) diversity of students in terms of race and their background as
English language learners. The OECE also determines characteristics of selected placement sites in
relation to our EPP program needs and placement categories (rural, suburban, urban) to target a broad
range of experiences for candidates. Within the context of location, the OECE strives to maximize the
range of available sites and foster teacher candidates' understanding of the wide range of needs and
abilities of P-12 students. This process ensures experience across a broad range of students and
communities for each teacher candidate.

c. Moving forward, student impact portfolios and other assessments that use data for SRBI
(Connecticut's RTI) model of instructional planning will include data on P-12 student growth and 3
students, each of whom represents at least one of these categories: Identified disability, eg., with an IFSP
or IEP; one who is an ELL; and one who is performing above grade level within the content area of the
unit plan or below grade level; and one who is economically or culturally diverse from the candidate.

Return to Standard 3 Main Page

Return to Institutional Report Main Page