Self-Study Report - UAFS

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS - FORT SMITH

5210 Grand AvenueFort Smith AR 72913

April 23-25 2017

Type of VisitContinuing visit - Initial Teacher Preparation

Self-Study ReportSelected Improvement (SI) Pathway

Form Version _Template Version_

Confid

entia

l

CAEP Self-Study Report for SI Pathway

I EPP Overview

a Context and Unique Characteristics

The University of Arkansas - Fort Smith (UAFS) is located in the heart of the Arkansas River Valley near the ArkansasOklahoma border Its 170 acre campus is in Fort Smith the second largest city in Arkansas It has 65 campus buildings and facilities UAFS has a unique history It was founded in 1928 as Fort Smith Junior College an extension of the public school system in Fort Smith In 1950 the school was incorporated as a private nonprofit institution with its own governing boards In 1966 the institution became Westark Junior College in 1972 it changed to Westark Community College and then to Westark College in 1998 In 2000 Westark College merged with the University of Arkansas System as a four-year institution It became official on January 1 2002 and the College of Education was established that year In 2014 UAFS revised its organizational structure and changed the College of Education to the School of Education (SOE) which is housed in the College of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Another unique feature of UAFS is the Western Arkansas Technical Center (WATC) an area secondary center that offers high school juniors and seniors in a six county area of western Arkansas an opportunity to earn up to 38 college credit hours that apply toward a technical certificate associate or bachelors degree while still in high school The School of Education offers an associate degree in Early Childhood Education in partnership with WATC UAFS is the sixth largest university in Arkansas and one of 11 campuses in the University of Arkansas System UAFS serves more than 20000 people annually in credit and non-credit programs In fall 2015 the student population was 6707 and the student-to-faculty ratio was 181 UAFS offers 33 bachelors degrees 14 associate degrees 28 certificates and 1 masters degree More than 50 of the UAFS students receive financial assistance from scholarships grants loans and student employment

b Description of Organizational Structure

The University of Arkansas - Fort Smith includes five colleges of postsecondary education College of Applied Science and Technology College of Business College of Health Sciences (includes the Carolyn McKelvey Moore School of Nursing) College of Communication Languages Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Science Technology Engineering amp Mathematics (includes the School of Education) Since 2014 the UAFS School of Education has been part of the College of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Therefore the Dean of STEM serves as the Dean of the School of Education The governance structure of the UAFS School of Education includes the following Dean - College of STEMSchool of Education Executive Director - School of Education Education Coordinator Council (ECC) Teacher Credential and Standards Committee (TCSC) Teacher Education Council (TEC) and a Superintendents Advisory Group The Executive Director of the School of Education is the Unit Head of Teacher Education at UAFS The Dean and Executive Director serve as ad hoc members of all committees The Dean and Executive Director are responsible for all final products from the School of Education The Dean reports directly to the ProvostChief Academic Officer The Executive Director of the School of Education reports to the Dean of STEM The Teacher Education Council serves as an advisory body on matters of policy and curriculum for teacher education The School of Education is most effective as it works in partnership with area school districts to meet local needs while focusing on national and state standards

c Vision Mission and Goals

The vision of UAFS is to be a premier regional university connecting education with careers Its

(Confidential)

1

Parity Table A consultant for our CAEP report completed the following process to identify an institution that would be ldquobest fitrdquo for the parity table After identifying several EPPs in other states as comparable matches it was determined to select an EPP in Arkansas University of Central Arkansas was selected following the process outline below

Peer Selection

Peers institutions were selected from the universe of institutions of higher education found in the Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System The following initial criteria for selection were chosen to narrow the list of candidates to a manageable list for review

bull Geographical region Plains IA KS MN MO NE ND SD Southeast AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN VA WV Southwest AZ NM OK TX

bull Sector Public 4-year or above

bull Degree-granting status Degree-granting

bull Highest degree offered Masters degree

bull Institutional category Degree-granting primarily baccalaureate or above

bull All programs offered completely via distance education No

bull Institution size category 5000 - 9999 10000 - 19999

bull Degree of urbanization (Locale) City Small City Midsize Suburb Midsize Suburb Large Suburb Small

These criteria resulted in the following institutions ID Institution Name City State

159717 McNeese State University Lake Charles LA

218964 Winthrop University Rock Hill SC

206941 University of Central Oklahoma Edmond OK

2

217819 College of Charleston Charleston SC

226833 Midwestern State University Wichita Falls TX

219602 Austin Peay State University Clarksville TN

231712 Christopher Newport University Newport News VA

218742 University of South Carolina-Upstate Spartanburg SC

229018 The University of Texas of the Permian Basin Odessa TX

101879 University of North Alabama Florence AL

178387 Missouri Western State University Saint Joseph MO

139311 Clayton State University Morrow GA

179557 Southeast Missouri State University Cape Girardeau MO

206914 Cameron University Lawton OK

159966 Nicholls State University Thibodaux LA

178341 Missouri Southern State University Joplin MO

108092 University of Arkansas-Fort Smith Fort Smith AR

This initial list produced no comparison schools in the state of Arkansas The University of Central Arkansas was subsequently added to the list because of 1) its historical role in Arkansas as teacherrsquos college and 2) the close match of the institution in most respects with the exception of the total enrollment of the university Additional data were extracted from IPEDS for the resulting set of 18 institutions

UnitID Institution Name Location

2015 Education Degrees Awarded (1st major) (2nd major) PELL

2014 Total Enrollment

2014 Undergrad Enrollment

219602 Austin Peay State University Clarksville TN 85 52 10111 9246

206914 Cameron University Lawton OK 76 49 5537 5054

231712 Christopher Newport University Newport News VA 16 5221 5096

139311 Clayton State University Morrow GA 17 58 7022 6632

217819 College of Charleston Charleston SC 134 15 23 11456 10440

3

159717 McNeese State University Lake Charles LA 65 36 8237 7484

226833 Midwestern State University Wichita Falls TX 28 38 5874 5144

178341 Missouri Southern State University Joplin MO 109 56 5613 5561

178387 Missouri Western State University St Joseph MO 91 43 5834 5650

159966 Nicholls State University Thibodaux LA 69 39 6292 5690

179557 Southeast Missouri State University Cape Girardeau MO 272 1 35 12087 10848

229018 The University of Texas of the Permian Basin Odessa TX 19 5560 4661

108092 University of Arkansas-Fort Smith Ft Smith AR 105 51 6830 6830

106704 University of Central Arkansas Conway AR 164 41 11698 9842

206941 University of Central Oklahoma Edmond OK 223 35 16840 14998

101879 University of North Alabama Florence AL 96 41 6841 5885

218742 University of South Carolina-Upstate Spartanburg SC 171 46 5585 5397

218964 Winthrop University Rock Hill SC 123 40 6024 4974

Number education degrees awarded percent students Pell eligible total enrollment and total undergraduate enrollment were added to the list for comparison Two schools Christopher Newport University and The University of Texas of the Permian Basin granted no education degrees and were dropped from the list Of the remaining 16 schools institutions with similar degree productivity proportion of Pell-eligible students and undergraduate enrollment were selected Priority was given to schools in states bordering Arkansas From the list of 16 the following 5 institutions plus the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith were chosen as peers


2015 Education Degrees Awarded (1st major)

(2nd major) PELL









4

Parity Table Capacity of Dimension

EPP description of Metric(s)

EPP Data ndash UAFS Data Comparative entity data ndash UCA DATA

Facilities Square Footage of Facilities

The School of Education is housed in the MathScience Building on the UAFS campus The SOE utilizes 662745 square feet of space in the MathScience Building It houses the Executive Directorrsquos office and the SOE Curriculum Library The SOE also shares the Echolrsquos Building an old elementary school that is located on the UAFS campus The building houses the Pre-K Programs The square footage used by the School of Education on the Echols campus is 40112 making the total 1063865

The College of Education at UCA has the primary use of Mashburn Hall although the 2nd floor of the building does house the Psychology Department Given calculations to remove square footage for the Psych Department the COE uses 38772 square feet in Mashburn Hall The COE also owns the Child Study Center across the street which includes 2719 square feet Total estimated square feet used by the COE is 41491 This space houses the deanrsquos office the office of candidates services 3 departments the PhD program the Technology Learning Center and the Child Study Center Given that UCA estimates 23 million square feet total on campus this makes the COE 18 of the total campus square footage

Fiscal Support Budgets Total Budget for SOE = $1243016 Total Budget for COE = $5374 662 Administrative Support

Faculty and Staff UAFS School of Education is located in the College of Education The Dean of STEM serves as the Dean of SOE however the unit head of the SOE is the Executive Director There are 3 coordinators (9 month faculty) who have 3-6 hours of release time each academic year Dean ndash STEM Executive Director- SOE Coordinator of Secondary ndash 9 month faculty with 6 hour release time each academic year Coordinator of Middle Childhood ndash9 month faculty with 3 hour release time each academic year Coordinator of Elementary ndash9 month faculty with 3 hour release time each academic year

UCA has 6 FTE administrators in the college of Education as follows Dean Associate Dean Director - Office of Candidate Services Chair ndash Department of Teaching and Learning Chair ndash Department of Leadership Studies Chair ndash Department of Elementary Literacy and Special Education UCA has following faculty breakdown TenureTenure-Track = 30 ClinicalNon-Tenure = 25 Adjunct = 30

5

SOE has the following faculty breakdown TenureTenure-Track = 9 ClinicalNon-Tenure = 1 Visiting Instructor = 1 Adjunct and Clinical= 14 Staff Administrative Specialist III - 1 Administrative Analyst = 1 Administrative Specialists = 4 ECE Pre-K Program Director = 1 Visiting Instructor = 1

Candidate Support Services

Curriculum Library with a full time Administrative Specialist housed in the Curriculum Library SOE Computer Lab ECE Preschool Resource Room STEM Education Resource Room STEM Education Library Full Time SOE Education Advising Coordinator Budgeted $83062

Total Budget for Office of Candidate Services = $257 212

FTE Students in teacher education programs

ADE EPP Reports Novice Teacher Survey Danielson FFTTESS Data

See Tables Below See Tables Below

Candidate feedback formal and informal

Candidate Feedback


6

Arkansas 2016 EPP Report For University of Arkansas ndash Fort Smith Table 4 Enrollment and Demographic Data Program Type Traditional

Male 90

Female 146

Total Enrollment 236

Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7

Note Individuals can belong to one or more racial groups The sum of the members of each racial category may not necessarily add up to the total number of students enrolled For purposes of Title II reporting the definition of an enrolled student is a student who has been admitted to a teacher preparation program but who has not yet completed the program

VII Novice Teacher Survey Results First-year teachers complete the ldquoNovice Teacher Surveyrdquo in the spring at the end of their first year of teaching The purpose of the survey is to identify novice teacher perceptions of their educator preparation experience base on the four TESS domains The spring 2015 questions and results (related to the Framework for Teaching domains) are presented below for traditional and nontraditional programs Table 8 Novice Teacher Survey Results Instructions were as follows Please rate the following statements based on how well you feel your educator preparation provider (EPP) prepared you in each category for your first year of teaching SCALE 1=Not at all prepared 2=Inadequately prepared 3=Adequately prepared 4=Well prepared 5=Very well prepared Domain Category UAFS scores (n=60) State scores (n=1512) 1a Knowledge of content and

pedagogy 434 417

1b Knowledge of students 440 421 1c Instructional outcomes 428 405 1d Knowledge of resources 434 406 1e Coherent instruction 430 407 1f Student assessments 424 394 2a Environment of respect and

rapport 425 424

2b Culture for learning 439 418 2c Managing classroom procedures 417 403

7

2d Managing student behavior 407 398 2e Organizing physical space 441 414 3a Communicating with students 428 417 3b Questioning and discussion

techniques 414 396

3c Engaging students in learning 422 408 3d Using assessment in instruction 415 394 3e Flexibility and responsiveness 425 411 4a Reflecting on teaching 440 420 4b Maintaining accurate records 426 396 4c Communicating with families 405 397 4d Participating in professional

community 440 411

4e Growing and developing professionally

433 416

4f Showing professionalism 439 430 Avg of all 22 items 428 409 Source ADE Novice Teacher Survey - Spring 2015 Table 16 GATE 7 UAFS School of Education Exit Interviews EPP-Created Assessment

Beginning spring 2016 teacher candidates completing internship participated in an exit interview with the Coordinator of Teacher Licensure and Field Placement to investigate perceptions of professional experiences provided Qualitative data were also collected and reviewed for program improvement The SOE Assessment Report provides additional data from program completers Table 16 outlines the quantitative data provided by the interviews

Sp16

On a scale of 1-5 (5=highest) please rate the SOE in each of the following areas N=60

1 Faculty disposition towards students CAEP 11 14 InTASC 1 3 4 7 Danielson 2a 443

2 Quality of Practicum I experience CAEP 12 13 15 InTASC 9 Danielson 4a 398

3 Quality of Practicum 418

4 Quality of Internship experience CAEP 12 13 15 InTASC 9 Danielson 4a 462

8

5 Quality of Capstone experience CAEP 12 13 15 InTASC 9 Danielson 4a 428

6 Level of your involvement in SOE activities (educational professional social) CAEP 11 12 InTASC 10 Danielson 10 368

7 How would you rate your overall experience in the SOE CAEP 12 13 15 InTASC 9 Danielson 4a 435

Arkansas 2016 EPP Report For University of Central Arkansas

2016 University of Central Arkansas Table 4 Enrollment and Demographic Data Program Type

Male Female Total Enrollment

Hispanic Nat Amer Asian Black Islander White Multi- Racial

Traditional 94 272 366 11 1 3 25 3 317 6 Note Individuals can belong to one or more racial groups The sum of the members of each racial category may not necessarily add up to the total number of students enrolled For purposes of Title II reporting the definition of an enrolled student is a student who has been admitted to a teacher preparation program but who has not yet completed the program Source Data submitted directly to ADE (not via Title II)

VII Novice Teacher Survey Results First-year teachers complete the ldquoNovice Teacher Surveyrdquo in the spring at the end of their first year of teaching The purpose of the survey is to identify novice teacher perceptions of their educator preparation experience base on the four TESS domains The spring 2015 questions and results (related to the Framework for Teaching domains) are presented below for traditional and nontraditional programs Table 8 Novice Teacher Survey Results Instructions were as follows Please rate the following statements based on how well you feel your educator preparation provider (EPP) prepared you in each category for your first year of teaching SCALE 1=Not at all prepared 2=Inadequately prepared 3=Adequately prepared 4=Well prepared 5=Very well prepared Domain Category UCA scores (n=102) State scores (n=1512)

9

1a Knowledge of content and pedagogy

435 417


rapport 442 424

2b Culture for learning 427 418 2c Managing classroom procedures 416 403 2d Managing student behavior 415 398 2e Organizing physical space 427 414 3a Communicating with students 429 417 3b Questioning and discussion

techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416

4f Showing professionalism 441 430 Avg of all 22 items 421 409 Source ADE

10

UCA End of Program TESS Preparation Survey Results ndash Combined Traditional and Nontraditional - 2015-20161

How well did your program prepare you in the following areas UCA Mean (n=286)

EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)

MAT SECED Mean (n=53)

1 Planning and Preparation for instruction including (1) knowledge of content and pedagogy (2) knowledge of students (3) setting instructional outcomes (4) knowledge of resources (5) designing coherent instruction (6) designing student assessment (TESS)

410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389

2 Classroom Environment including (1) creating an environment of respect and rapport (2) establishing a culture for learning (3) managing classroom procedures (4) managing student behavior and (5) organizing physical space

403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375

3 Instruction including (1) communicating with students (2) using questioning and discussion techniques (3) engaging students in learning (4) using assessment in instruction and (5) demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness

411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392

4 Professional Responsibilities including (1) reflection on teaching (2) maintaining accurate records (3) communicating with families (4) participating in a professional community (5) growing and developing professionally and (6) showing professionalism

399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383

1 Administered to UCA initial teacher licensure candidates at the end of their graduating term as they conclude their clinical teaching experience Data source Qualtrics Scale 1-5 Not at All Prepared (1) Inadequately Prepared (2) Adequately Prepared (3) Well Prepared (4) Very Well Prepared (5)

Parity Tablepdf

8

The School of Education (SOE) faculty Teacher Education Council members and teacher candidates currently enrolled in the program participated in the Faculty Retreat on August 10 2016 to review the CAEP report and unit assessment data They identified areas in need of improvement based on the data In CAEP Standard I they noted the candidates scored lowest in Danielsonrsquos Framework for Teaching (FFT) Domain 4c ndash Communication with Families Additionally they discussed a weakness in research opportunities for candidates Faculty serve as advisors to candidates who complete research projects for the annual UAFS Research Symposium and this participation has been very beneficial for those candidates Some faculty members also advise honors students who complete in depth research in specific content areas In response to candidatesrsquo expressed need for more collaboration and support in learning academic research writing skills the SOE faculty planned and developed a new independent study course for educational research which was implemented in 2016 Although some programs in the SOE offer in-depth research projects they are not unit-wide Therefore the faculty reached consensus to connect the two areas (Communication with Families and Research Writing) in the Selected Improvement Plan

Selected Improvement Plan

1 Provide a description of the selected area for improvement and a rationale for selection

Focal Area Improve teacher candidatesrsquo competencies in communicating with families (FFT 4c CAEP 11 12 15) to involveimprove K-12 student academic achievement

Data from internsrsquo summative evaluations indicate that candidates did not meet target level on the Framework for Teaching (FFT) evaluation Domain 4c Communicating with Families About instructional program About individual students Engagement of families in instructional program

The UAFS School of Education believes that broadening teacher candidatesrsquo knowledge of research pertaining to family involvementrsquos impact on studentsrsquo academic achievement and providing teacher candidates with multiple opportunities to interact with families will improve their abilities to connect more effectively with families from diverse backgrounds

2 Identify goals and objectives aligned with the selected area for improvement

a Improve candidatesrsquo knowledge based on research relevant to the impact of family involvement on K-12 studentsrsquo academic achievement

b Improve candidatesrsquo skills in communicating with families in order to meet K-12 studentsrsquo needs

c Improve candidatesrsquo cultural awareness to better prepare them for working with families of diverse cultures by increasing opportunities for interactions

3 Describe the specific strategies and interventions to be implemented in the Selected Improvement Plan along with a timeline for implementation

To meet these goals and objectives assignments in the educational psychology (EDUC 3013) and the two levels of clinical experience courses (Secondary - EDUC 3211 EDUC 4211 and ElementaryMiddle Level - ELML 3202 ELML 4102) will be designed that require candidates to complete research relevant to the impact of family involvement on student learning collect data reflect on and draw conclusions based on results

Timeline for implementation

4 Data collection and Analysis

Present a complete description of the assessment plan that details how each goal or objective is to be assessed

The assessment plan will include specific points of evaluation Research and development of the literature review document will take place during the educational psychology course with Objectives 1 and 3 being assessed Objectives 2 and 3 will be assessed during Clinical Experiences 1 and 2 as research-based surveys are designed and implemented based on school district demographics Surveys will be implemented during parent teacher conferences planned activities or through online school district programs Opportunities to share research results will be provided during presentations in the second Clinical Experiences and will be a culmination of what teacher candidates learned in both Clinical 1 and 2 with Objectives 1 2 and 3 being assessed using the rubric shown at the end on this document

Danielsonrsquos FFT a proprietary assessment will be used to assess the goal during the summative evaluation used at the end of the internship semester This assessment is used by the SOE to assess candidate effectiveness The state of Arkansas uses the FFT for teacher evaluation making it a seamless assessment from pre-service preparation to the K-12 classroom The SOE faculty will monitor the results each semester when they review the Assessment Report data

GOAL Improving teacher candidatesrsquo competency in communicating with families (FFT 4c CAEP 11 12 15) to involveimprove K-12 student academic achievement

5 Describe the resources available to implement the plan This includes staffing and faculty cost (time salary or

reassignment time) budgeting impacts such as travel or training costs expertise and other resources

No new resources will be needed because current faculty will design and create assessments within SOE classes

Travel to clinical experiences is in place and no additional training will be necessary

Family Involvement Assignments

Educational Psychology course

As K-12 pre-service teachers it is important to begin fostering relationships in order to support studentsrsquo learning Opportunities to interact with families of K-12 students are integral pieces of the overall educational plan Candidates will complete a literature review pertaining to the importance of parentalfamily involvement in studentsrsquo K-12 education Guidelines will be provided by the instructor and assessment will also be completed by the instructor

Clinical Experience 1 and 2

1 Begin this two semester assignment in clinical experience 1 by reflecting on your previously completed literature review research pertaining to parentalfamily involvement in studentsrsquo K-12 education Proceed to read Findersrsquo and Lewisrsquo article ldquoWhy Some Parents Dont Come to Schoolrdquo It can be found at the following web address

wwwneaorgteachexperienceprntk030909html

httpwwwascdorgpublicationseducational-leadershipmay94vol51num08Why-Some- Parents-Dont-Come-to-

Schoolaspx

2 Reflect on the contents of the article and note three of the most important things that you learned from the article Bring these to class on an index card (provided by instructor) and include at least one question that you have in regard to the topic of the article

3 As a class determine topics of interest that might be the most requested ones for families of children in grades K-6 4-8 or 9-12 The list can be developed from informal interviews of family members of K-12 learners and current issues and trends in education

4 Per suggestion of your instructor research demographic data pertaining to the school in which future family involvement research projects will be presented Follow this step with additional research of the cultural and socio-economic characteristics of the school population and surrounding community Reference the school systemrsquos website and the following sources

httpncesedgovccdschoolsearch

httpdatacenterkidscountorgdataAR100char0

httpswwwcensusgovhhesschoollinksindexhtml

5 As a class compile the topics and include them in a ldquouser-friendlyrdquo formatted survey Duplicate the survey including translations per all native languages represented in the school After review and approval from the school administration complete the survey communicating with parentsguardians during parent teacher conferences planned school activities andor using the school districtrsquos online program Upon completion and return of the surveys analyze results and reflect on how teacher candidates might utilize the information gained to better engage with families in order to meet their K-12 studentsrsquo multicultural and academic needs

6 At the end of Clinical Experience 2 teacher candidates will present their research collected data analysis of data and reflections on their findings and describe how they might impact and inform future practice in the area of family involvement and communicating with families from diverse cultures

Scoring Rubric

Presentation Rubric

Communicating with Families

UAFS Selected Improvement Plan (SIP)
UAFS HLC Statement of Affiliation Status

mission is to prepare students to succeed in an ever-changing global world while advancing economic development and quality of place UAFS seeks to strengthen the educational cultural and economic development of the communities in the region The School of Education faculty work to increase capacity through articulation and action aligned to shared goals The School of Education faculty are actively involved in scholarly activities that support the shared vision professional growth and commitment to increased levels of student learning for teacher candidates and P-12 students In addition to recruiting and admitting high quality teacher candidates the School of Education has a rigorous and innovative curriculum that prepares candidates to respond to the challenges in P-12 education Its integrated whole child approach prepares candidates for diverse teaching experiences with a belief that all children can learn and the efficacy to implement action research for continuous improvement The UAFS School of Education was ranked as one of the top two education programs in the state of Arkansas in 2016 by BecomeATeacherorg The School of Education is one of two education preparation programs in the state to have Professional Development Schools (PDS) As a result of the preparation provided through rigorous coursework and meaningful clinical practice UAFS School of Education graduates are sought after for employment The School of Education graduates approximately 110 teachers each year with a retention rate of admitted candidates at approximately 75 In 2015-2016 approximately 60 of the previous years completers were employed in Arkansas Fort Smith borders Oklahoma therefore the School of Education also prepares candidates who choose to teach in that state

d EPPs Shared Values and Beliefs for Educator Preparation

The School of Education beliefs for educator preparation are reflected in its Conceptual Framework (CF) which is derived from its mission Professionals United to Ensure Continuous Learning and Success The Framework is informed by two major sources of research in best practices for educators InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) and Charlotte Danielsons Framework for Teaching (FFT) The School of Education piloted the edTPA Portfolio in 2014 and adopted it as a unit assessment in 2015 InTASC and FFT are aligned with edTPA tasks The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) adopted the InTASC Standards as the Arkansas Teaching Standards (ATS) The CF synthesizes the concepts from these models to represent the School of Education expectations for teacher candidates The School of Education Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) are the InTASC Standards which are aligned with FFT and edTPA The Frameworks dominant feature is the teachers Focus on Student Learning A teachers decisions should be made through an analytical thought process that considers the best approaches to student learning The concentric blue rings represent overall expectations Technology communication skills and sound ethical practice are evident in all teaching decisions Within the concentric structure the CF divides into four quadrants The first quadrant ensures that teachers consider student development student differences and the learning environment during instruction and interactions with students The second quadrant considers the teachers need for deep and broad content knowledge and an understanding of how to connect the content in a manner that engages learners in higher level thinking The third quadrant delineates the instructional practice through the integration of assessment planning and instructional strategies in a coordinated manner The final quadrant sets expectations for the teachers professional learning ethical practice and leadership roles It also emphasizes the importance of collaboration with learners families colleagues and community leader to ensure learner growth The CF guides candidates and pre-service teachers through each essential component of successful professional practice School of Education faculty and staff are committed to the principles of the CF and model its tenets in their own practice

The emphasis of the School of Education is on outcomes Courses in the School of Education are characterized by the following criteria 1 Frequent multiple types of classroom assessments throughout the course with emphasis on authenticity and self-reflection leading to continuous growth 2 Identified levels of proficiency in learning objectives candidates must demonstrate through

(Confidential) Page 2

application of that learning in career-relevant scenarios 3 Identification of general education competencies addressed directly either through explicit initial instruction or as reinforcement of initial instruction such as case studies or problem-based learning 4 Accelerated learning options for candidates 5 Consideration of individual learning styles while adhering to class expectations 6 Opportunities for candidates to work in teams groups or partnerships to practice collaborative learning

Additionally the SOE has shared values and beliefs regarding the professional conduct of its candidates The School of Education Dispositions for Teacher Candidates are 1 COLLABORATION 2 REFLECTION 3 INTEGRITY 4 LEARNING INITIATIVE 5 RESPONSIBILITY 6 RESPECT 7 DIVERSITY The School of Education tracks each candidates disposition for teaching as they progress through their program of study Candidates must demonstrate appropriate dispositions for admission retention and completion of the teacher preparation program

e Is the EPP regionally or institutionally accreditedYes No the EPP is ineligible for regionalinstitutional accreditation or such accreditation is not available

EPP is regionally or institutionally accredited

a If your institutionEPP is regionally accredited please upload a PDF copy of the award of regional accreditation here If your institutionEPP is NOT regional accredited please move to the next page


See Attachment panel below

Table 1 - Capacity

a Institutional (EPP) ability to meet its financial obligations The EPP uploads one of three items (IF YOUR INSTITUIONEPP IS REGIONALLY ACCREDITED DO NOT COMPLETE TABLE 1 PLEASE MOVE TO NEXT PAGE)

1) Legal entitys 990 form (for non-profit EPPs) or 2) corporate income tax returns for the past year (for for-profit EPPs) or 3) equivalent evidence of financial health (for international EPPs)

b Prepared budget for current year The EPP uploads 1) The most current approved budget for the current academic or calendar year whichever is most

relevant for the EPPs context or 2) equivalent evidence of revenues and expenditures


Budget figures must be converted to USD if another currency is used

c Financial projections for long-term financial sustainability The EPP uploads 1) Revenues and expense projections for the next two years (either calendar or fiscal) including

funding streams or2) equivalent evidence of financial sustainability

If funding is exclusively tuition based the EPP must upload 1) Its tuition refund policy and 2) its teach-out plan in the case that the EPPs programs are discontinued

d External audit process The EPP uploads 1) Clean independent audits of a full set of financial statements for the EPP or 2) equivalent evidence of administrative budgetary oversight (for international EPPs)

e Administrative structure The EPP uploads 1) A one-to-two page narrative describing the EPPs relationship with the legal entity in which it is

housed (if any) and 2) an organizational chart

Table 2 Program Characteristics

a Complete this table of program characteristics by entering the information requested for every program or program option offered by the EPP Cross check the list with the programs listed in the EPPs academic catalog if any as well as the list of state-approved registered programs if applicable Site Visitors will reference this list in AIMS during the accreditation review process

Name of Programspecialty

area

Enrollment in current fall

cycle

Enrollment in last fall cycle

Degree certificate or

licensure level

Method of Delivery

State(s) which program is approved

Date of state approval(s)

Program Review Option

(National Recognition state-only or

Program Review with Feedback)

PreK-Grade 4

Pre-K and ELEM combined programs = 280

PK-4 and ELEM combined programs = 203

Pre-K to grade 4 license

on campus Arkansas

last approval date was February 7 2008 ADE changed the licensure area to K-6 in 2014 The last P-4 candidates will graduate in spring 2018

National Recognition

Elementary K-6



Grades K-6 license on campus Arkansas

new licensure area approved on February 19 2015 by ADE

New program no graduates waiting on CAEP Standards

Middle Childhood

82 87

Grades 4-8 license in 2 specialty areas (mathematics

on campus Arkansas

revised to reflect changes in ADE requirements National


Grade 4-8 language arts science social studies)

approved on February 19 2015 by ADE

Recognition

English Teacher Licensure 7-12 74 54 English grades

7-12 license on campus Arkansas

revised to reflect changes in ADE requirements approved on May 9 2016 by ADE


History Teacher Licensure K-12 103 79

Social Studies grades 7-12 license

on campus Arkansas approval date -January 30 2007


Biology Teacher Licensure K-12 14 13 Biology grades


revised to reflect changes in ADE requirements approved on April 13 2016 by ADE

National Recognition with conditions will resubmit

Mathematics Teacher Licensure 7-12

33 28Mathematics grades 7-12 license

on campus Arkansas

revised to reflect changes in ADE requirements approved on February 5 2016 by ADE


Spanish Teacher Licensure K-12 21 12

Spanish grades K-12 license on campus Arkansas



Music Teacher Licensure K-12 45 37

Music grades K-12 license in one of two specialty areas ( instrumental or vocal)

on campus Arkansas

revised to reflect changes in ADE requirements approved on July 1 2015 by ADE

state-only approval - no SPA

Special Education P-4 and 4-12 endorsement

4 0Special education endorsement

on campus Arkansas approved May 18 2007 deleted in 2015

National Recognition Program deleted in 2015 due to low-enrollment

Table 3 EPP Characteristics

Complete a table of EPP characteristics in AIMS to provide an expanded profile by which the accreditation process is managed by CAEP staff EPP characteristics are also used by CAEP staff in compiling CAEPs Annual Report to the public and used as a series of filters for dashboard comparison by the EPP itself The AIMS version of this table in which the data are actually entered has drop-down menus by which characteristics are selected and the table is completedControl of Institution Public

Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class

LocationSuburbanCommentBaccalaureate Colleges Diverse Fields

Currently offering initial teacher preparation programs


Teacher Preparation Levels Not currently offering advanced teacher preparation programs

EPP Type Institution of Higher Education StateRegional

Religious Affiliations Undenominational

Language of Instruction English

Institutional Accreditation (Affiliations) North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

Table 4 Clinical Educator Qualification Table

a The clinical educator (EPP faculty amp supervisors) qualifications table is completed by providing information for each of the EPP-based clinical educators

NameHighest degree

earned

Field or specialty area of highest

degree

Program Assignment(s)

Teaching assignment or role

within the program(s)

P-12 certificates or licensures held

P-12 experiences including teaching or administration

dates of engagement in

these roles

Dr Glenda Ezell EdD Higher Education Administration

Executive Director - School of Education

Administrator 6 hour teaching load per year (may include supervision)

Arkansas licensure - P4-Grade 4 K-6 PK-12 Special Education Instructional Specialist K-12 Special Education Supervisor Elementary Principal K-9

SPED Self-Contained K-12 -1986-1990 Elementary teacher - 1990-1992 Alternative Education K-12-1992-1995 Special Education Resource K-5 -1995-1999

Dr Shelli Henehan EdD Adult EducationCoordinator of Assessment Faculty

9 hour teaching load each semester (may include supervision)

Arkansas Elementary K-6 Pre-K to Grade 4

4th grade in 1988-1989 at Fort Smith Christian School Preschool from 2000-2004 at River Valley Christian School

Ms Melony Francis MED Early Childhood

EducationDirector of PreK Programs

Administrator = 50 Teaching = 50 (may include supervision)

Oklahoma license - Elementary Education K-8

Classroom teacher for 23 years in 1st 3rd and 4th grades Mentor teacher to 7 interns

Ms Helen Holland MED Elementary Education

Coordinator of Teacher Licensure and Field Experiences

Administration with a 4 hour teaching load each year (may include supervision)

Arkansas license -1-6 Elementary Principal

Classroom teacher for 21 years Elementary Principal for 9 years

Dr Barbara Hunt EdD

EdD Curriculum and Instruction University of Houston

Faculty (may include supervision) Texas license

Public School Teacher (1982-1995) 6th Grade Galena Park Texas

Dr Deebe Milford EdD Elementary Education Faculty

12 teaching load each semester (may include supervision)

Arkansas license -Prek-Grade 6 PK-Grade 4

Classroom teacher 15 years (PK K 1)

Ms Ginger Osburn MED National Board Certification

Elementary Education Faculty


Oklahoma license - K-Grade 8

32 Years Early Childhood Experience in Kindergarten

Watson Chapel School District Pine Bluff AR


Dr Linda Reid EdD School Administration

Faculty


Arkansas

1974-1992 4th-5th grade teacher District CoordinatorGrant WriterReading is FundementalDrug Education Watson Chapel Pine Bluff AR - 1992-2001

Dr Sara Davis EdDFamily Relations and Child Development

Faculty


Oklahoma license

Oklahoma City Public Schools PreK and 2nd Grade 3 years Putnam City Public Schools Kindergarten - 5th Grade 16 years Clinical supervision K-4 Oklahoma State 2 years Portland State Liason for Public School field experiences 6 years

Dr Ernest Barnett EdD Education Faculty


Nebraska

Horizon Elementary and Middle School Kearney Nebraska Subjects Taught Social Studies English Reading (Grades 3-9) 1991-1994 Milton Comprehensive School Bo Sierra LeoneWest Africa Subjects Taught Social Studies English and Geography (Grades 1-12) 1982-86 Holy Ghost Elementary Segbwema (Sierra Leone -West Africa) Subject Taught Social Studies English Geography (Grades 1-7) 1980-82

Dr Lois Yocum EdD Curriculum and Instruction

Coordinator of Secondary Education Faculty

Administrator with a 9 hour teaching load each semester (may include supervision)

Current Iowa Teaching License All English and US History and World History grades 5-12

23 years middle school language artspublications teacher 7 years high school English teacher

Ms April EvansMED National Board Certification Reading Specialist Visiting instructor


Arkansas license P-4 and 4-8

10 years teaching experience in Van Buren School District

Arkansas Licensed In Middle School

Union Christian Academy Assistant Principal K-12 2005-2007


Dr Cheryl Lehman EdD Education Adjunctteaching and university supervisor

Language ArtsSocial Studies 4-8 Middle School Science 5-8 Middle School Math 4-8 Family and Consumer Science 4-8 Family and Consumer Science 7-12

River Valley Christian School Teacher and Elementary Principal 2001-2002 4th Grade 2002-2005 Elementary Principal K-6 Fort Smtih Public Schools 1982-1991 Teacher and Department Head

Ms Courtney Wood MED Gifted and

Talented Adjunctteaching and university supervisor

Arkansas license -K-6 and Gifted and Talented

Taught elementary school in Fort Smith Public Schools

Mr Darren McKinney

EdD Administration Adjunct teachingArkansas license -Secondary Administrator

Classroom teacher 7 years Assistant Principal 5 years Principal 6 years

Ms Spring Stout MED Instructional Technology Adjunct teaching

Arkansas license -Instructional Technology

Currently employed in the Mountainburg School District

Ms Marion Sherrod MED

Elementary Education Adjunct supervision Arkansas license

Greenwood Public Schools Classroom Teacher 5th Grade 1996-2005 Fort Smith Public Schools Classroom Teacher

Ms Jenn Jennings-Davis MED English Language

Arts Adjunct teaching Arkansas license English 7-12

Taught English in Van Buren School District

Dr Janine Chitty EdD English University Supervisor

supervising English 7-12 interns

AR state certification in French (7-12) English (7-12) ESL (7-12)

Waco High School Waco TX (1989-1990) French I II Mansfield High School Mansfield AR (1998-1999) Secondary SPED Resource Math and English (7-12) Booneville High School Booneville AR (1999-2004) French I and II 9th grade Honors English AP Literature Greenwood High School Greenwood AR (2004-2012) French I II III IV Pre-AP English AP Literature English 10 11 12

Mr Michael Mann MED Biology University Supervisor

supervising Biology 7-12 interns

Arkansas Biology 7-12

Completed internship and substitute in 7-12

Teacher in


Dr Julie Oliver PhD History University Supervisor

supervising History 7-12 interns

Certified in broad field social studies 7-12 State of Georgia ESOL endorsed state of Georgia

secondary social studies in Chestatee High School Gainesville Georgia 2005-2009 In addition to social studies courses for native English speakers also taught sheltered world and US history to ESOL students

Ms Roberta Parks MEd MathematicsUniversity Supervisor

supervising Mathematics 7-12 interns

Arkansas license

Achieved National Board Certification in Adolescence and Young Adulthood Mathematics (Nov 2009) K-12 Math Instructional Specialist Institute for Math and Science Education (IMSE) University of Arkansas Fort Smith (2008-2011) Math Instructor Van Buren High School Van Buren AR (1995-2008) grades 9-12 Math Instructor Cedarville High School Cedarville AR (1990-1995) grades 7-12

Dr Alexandra Zacharella

Doctor of Musical Arts in Trombone Performance

Doctoral Minors Music Education Conducting Jazz Studies University of Southern California Thornton School of Music 2004-2007

University Supervisor

supervising Music K-12 interns

Macomb County and Washtenaw County Public Schools Michigan - 1999-2004 -Adjunct Low Brass Instructor LAnes Creuse Middle School Michigan - 2001-2004 - Director of Bands Guest Clinician in Western Arkansas Public Schools -2008 - Present Fourteen years of Teaching grades 6-12 public school instrumental music private studio lessons and guests clinics in marching band concert band and jazz band for band around the US

3 years experience at El


Dr Brenda Ross PhD Applied Linguistics University Supervisor

supervising Spanish K-12 interns

non-licensure

Colegio Ingles (Bilingual School) Montevideo Uruguay 1st through 4th grades 1 years experience as Amity Scholar Spanish Language Assistant at Anoka Sr High School Anoka MN

Dr Donna Scoggins

EdD Higher Administration

Faculty Coordinator of ELEMMLED


Arkansas license K-6 and 4-8

Public School Teacher (1977-2006) grades 5-7 math science social studies

Dr Linda Fair PhD History University Supervisor


Teaching Credential 1980-2015

Supervised and trained future geography teachers at Georgia State University Atlanta Georgia and Binghamton University New York California Multiple Subjects Taught 1st through 8th grades for eight years in California

Upload the clinical educator qualifications table if not provided in the previous table

Table 5 The Parity Table

a The parity table of curricular fiscal facility and administrative and support capacity for quality is used to satisfy requirements of the US Department of Education and is completed by providing data relevant for the EPP and making a comparison to an EPP-determined comparative entity The comparative entity might be another clinical EPP within a university structure a national organization the college or university as a whole or another entity identified as a benchmark by the EPP Again this chart offers an example of how the chart might be completed

Capacity Dimension EPP description of metric(s)

EPP data

Comparative entity data

Title and description of supplemental evidencedocumentation of quality for each dimension

FacilitiesFiscal SupportAdministrative supportCandidate support services Candidate feedback formal and informal

Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf


Table 6 Accreditation Plan

a The Accreditation Plan is an educator preparation providers (EPPs) identification of the


sites outside of the main campus or administrative headquarters and the programs offered at each site that will be included in the EPPs accreditation review This information in combination with the table of program characteristics is used by CAEP staff and site visit team leads to plan the site visit including the sites that will be visited by site team members

Geographic Site(s) administered by the EPP

Program offered at each site

Is the program to be included in accreditation

review (Y or N)

Is the program approved by state in which program

is offered (Y or N or approval not

required)

NotesComments

Table 7 EPP Assessments

Please list proprietary assessments used by the EPP (no more than 7)

Proprietary Assessment No Title of Assessment Validity amp Reliability information if available amp applicableProprietary Assessment No1 Praxis Core ETS AssessmentProprietary Assessment No2 Praxis Specialty Area ETS Assessment

Proprietary Assessment No3 Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) ETS Assessment

Proprietary Assessment No4 Danielson Framework for Teaching httpswwwdanielsongrouporgframeworkProprietary Assessment No5 edTPA httpedtpaaacteorgProprietary Assessment No6Proprietary Assessment No7

Please map above proprietary assessments to the appropriate CAEP Standards

CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4

CAEP Standard 5 State

Proprietary Assessment No1Proprietary Assessment No2Proprietary Assessment No3Proprietary Assessment No4Proprietary Assessment No5Proprietary Assessment No6Proprietary Assessment No7

II CAEP Standards and Evidence

Standard 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

i Evidencedatatables (Upload each item of evidence under the appropriate components of the standard and answer the following questions for each item)


1 1Unit Alignment

11 Understanding of InTASC Standards

2 2CAEP Alignment


3 3Assessment Manual


4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies

13 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge

6 6Assessment Report


7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams

14 All P-12 students afforded access to college- and career-ready standards

9 9EPP Reports


10 10GPA and ACT Table


11 11Non-Academic Requirements


12 12Standard 1 Tables


13 13Research Component

12 Use of research and evidence to measure students progress

14 14SPA Recognition


15 15GPA Content


16 16Required Courses Chart


17 17At Risk Candidates Summary


18 18Field Experience Tables



19 19Lesson Plan

15 Model and apply technology standards

20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study


23 Candidate Work Sample

Context for Learning

Instructional Materials

Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary

Instruction Commentary

Assessment Commentary

Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3

11 Understanding of InTASC Standards12 Use of research and evidence to measure students progress13 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge14 All P-12 students afforded access to college- and career-ready standards15 Model and apply technology standards

ii Analysis of evidence (through comparison benchmarking trend interpretation etc) that makes the case that the standard is met

The UA Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) Conceptual Framework is informed by two major sources of research in best practices for educators Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and Charlotte Danielsons Framework for Teaching (FFT) The Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) the InTASC Standards are assessed using multiple measures The 1Unit Alignment and the 2CAEP Alignment provide evidence of the SOEs Quality Assurance System (QAS) The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) uses the FFT as the teacher evaluation instrument in the public schools SOE candidates are introduced to the FFT in the Introduction to Education course FFT is reinforced in all education courses and used to assess candidates in all clinical experiences The four domains and 22 components have been crosswalked with the edTPA Portfolio another unit assessment used by the SOE to assess candidates Faculty and university supervisors have been trained to use both assessments FFT and edTPA both proprietary assessments are used both formatively and summatively


to monitor each candidates proficiency as heshe progresses through the program

The QAS is designed to measure candidate knowledge skills and dispositions derived from professional state and institutional standards As noted on pp 6-12 in the 3Assessment Manual and the 4Minutes several changes were made in fall 2015 based on the recommendation of an external evaluator The QAS is represented by a series of gates that must be cleared by candidates as they move through the program By successfully meeting the requirements at each gate candidates meet designated standards and complete their programs Multiple assessment measures both academic and non-academic provide the support for the process and provide continual feedback data for analysis at each level All programs of study have been approved by ADE and meet college and career ready standards (5ADE Competencies)

Candidates are expected to demonstrate competency in all ten InTASC standards The 6Assessment Report provides formative and summative data for each InTASC Standard The 7Candidate Manual outlines the process for candidates and demonstrates the alignment of InTASC FFT edTPA and the Disposition Assessment Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the InTASC Standards through academic requirements in the following documents 8Licensure Exams 9EPP Reports the 10GPA and ACT Table The 11Non-Academic Requirements table lists the types of assessments used and how they are tracked The 6Assessment Report provides FFT and edTPA scaffolded clinical experience data all aligned with InTASC Standards and CAEP components Disposition Assessment data in the 6Assessment Report provide an additional measure of candidate proficiency To assist the reviewer evidence for each CAEP Standard I component has been reported in tables that provide aggregated data aligned to the criteria of the component 12Standard 1 Tables provide evidence the candidates understand the ten InTASC Standards instructional practices and professional responsibility Each data table reports triangulated data from multiple assessments aligned to the specific CAEP component 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 2-3) report data from multiple measures that provide evidence the SOE candidates understand the InTASC Standards instructional practices and professional responsibilities of being an educator Additional evidence is found in the 6Assessment Report pp 24-27 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 4-5) provide evidence the SOE candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of teaching Additional evidence is found in the 13Research Component document 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 6-8) report data from multiple measures that provide evidence the candidatescompleters have content and pedagogical knowledge and can apply it Additional evidence is found in 6Assessment Report pp 40-44 and 57-62 8Licensure Exams 9EPP Reports 10GPA and ACT Table 14SPA Recognition 15GPA Content and 16Required Courses Chart 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 8-9) report data from multiple measures that are aligned with CAEP 14 and InTASC Another assessment the Candidate Disposition Assessment (6Assessment Report pp 24-27) allows faculty to track candidates dispositions an indicator of the candidates commitment to provide all P-12 students access to rigorous college and career ready standards The aggregated data provide valuable insight into trends and patterns However the most information gleaned from this assessment is the identification of individual candidates who are not performing at target level allowing for appropriate and timely interventions during preparation noted in the 17At Risk Candidates Summary 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 10-12) report data from FFT edTPA and the Diversity Case Study that are aligned with CAEP 15 and InTASC

As noted in the 12Standard 1 Tables diversity and technology are addressed throughout the entire program of study All candidates complete a course in educational technology The course objectives are aligned with ISTE Standards Candidates explore various types of instructional technology research a technology tool and present it to the class A new course objective beginning fall 2016 is the inclusion of a unit on assistive technology 16Required Courses Chart and 18Field Experiences Tables provide evidence how technology and diversity are addressed in both coursework and clinical experiences

Collectively 12Standard 1 Tables provide evidence from multiple measures the SOE candidates have the content and pedagogical knowledge that enables them to plan and implement differentiated lessons


based on the needs of the diverse learner Evidence also indicates the candidates use research to plan effective lessons and use technology to implement them Lastly the candidates are able to evaluate their impact on student learning and reflect on ways to improve FFT Domain 1 and edTPA Task 1 provide candidates opportunities to hone their skills in creating differentiated lesson plans that are appropriate to the needs of their students During Internship candidates create a unit of study based on the needs of their students and following their discipline-specific edTPA guidelines They teach the unit collect impact on student learning data reflect on their experiences and complete the portfolio assignments Reflection is a vital part of the process and leads to professional growth A final summative conference is held with the mentor teacher university supervisor and pre-service teacher Aggregated data are reported in the Assessment Report Therefore evidence from the 12Standard 1 Tables clearly indicates candidates understand the ten InTASC Standards instructional practices and professional responsibilities Pages 4-5 in the tables provide data specifically aligned to the use of research and understanding the teaching profession FFT Domain 1 and edTPA Task I provide data demonstrating the candidates proficiencies in using research to plan appropriate lessons for their students and then design appropriate assessments (FFT Domain 1e and edTPA Rubric 5)

As noted candidates scored at target in every FFT component except 4c communicating with parents Faculty have discussed the scores and identified ways to enable the candidates to have more opportunities to interact with the parents A major focus of FFT Domain 4a is the reflection component The progression of FFT assessment data indicate candidates are showing an improvement in reflection (6Assessment Report FFT 4a pp 22-23) from Practicum I through Internship Since full implementation of edTPA in fall 2015 the mean score for edTPA Task 2 Rubric 10 has been at target (12Standard 1 Tables pp 6-8) Novice Teacher Surveys (6Assessment Report pp 57-58) indicate the UAFS interns rated themselves 440 in reflection which was higher than the state mean of 420 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 6-8) provide data that indicate candidates meet the target with both assessments edTPA Task 3 also requires candidates to show examples of their students work and provide evidence through pre-and-post testing of their impact on student learning

All UAFS teacher licensure programs have been nationally recognized at some level by their respective SPAs Each program has been approved by the ADE and has met the career ready competencies for the discipline which are aligned with Praxis tests and SPA standards (14SPA Recognition) Candidates in every program must meet their discipline specific SPA requirements SOE requirements and ADE teacher licensure requirements Candidates must meet target on all unit assessments and meet the academic and non-academic requirements 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 6-8) provide data concerning the candidates application of content and pedagogical knowledge using both FFT scores and edTPA scores The 6Assessment Report provides data demonstrating the progression of those skills from Practicum I through Internship (pp 47-55) All programs of study have matrices aligned with discipline specific competencies and SPA standards Candidates must demonstrate strong content knowledge and pedagogical skills by passing the Praxis II Specialty exam and Principle of Learning and Teaching (PLT) exam Since 2014 the SOE requires candidates to pass all Praxis II exams for admission into Internship therefore 100 of the teacher licensure graduates have demonstrated their knowledge and skills ADE requires additional licensure trainings during Internship in the following areas Teen Suicide Prevention Child Maltreatment Code of Ethics for Arkansas Educators Parental Involvement Dyslexia Awareness Child Maltreatment and TESS (Danielson Framework for Teaching)

10GPA and ACT Table provides the GPA and ACT scores of each discipline and 15GPA Content data shows a comparison of the GPA of teacher licensure candidates and their non-licensure colleagues (when possible) Page 45 in the 6Assessment Report reports the mean cumulative GPA from admission to graduation for spring 2013-spring 2016 providing evidence the candidates are meeting content standards Candidates demonstrate their pedagogical skills in the classroom by creating a positive learning environment (InTASC 3FFT Domain 2eedTPA Task 2 Rubrics 6 7 8 10) and by engaging students in learning by using higher order thinking skills (FFT Domain 3 b and c) Progression data


(formative) from Practicum 1 through Internship is reported in the 6Assessment Report (pp 22-23 28-34 and 47-55) The FFT data indicate SOE candidates summative evaluations are at or above target in those criteria edTPA assessments are discipline specific and provide candidates the opportunity to use academic language appropriate to their discipline

As noted earlier Novice Teacher Surveys indicate SOE graduates are well-prepared in all areas and Employer Surveys indicate the graduates have a positive impact on student learning (6Assessment Report 57-58 and 40-44) FFT Components 1a 2a 3a b c e and the Lesson Planning data found in 12Standard 1 Tables (pp 10-12) provide evidence SOE candidates are meeting target in the use of technology a required component for the lesson plans (19Lesson Plan) Candidates videotape themselves teaching the lesson they created for edTPA Task 1 during Practicum I They hone those skills in Practicum II as they complete edTPA Tasks I and 2 During Internship they complete all three edTPA Portfolio tasks which include other videotaped lessons One specific assessment that requires candidates to explain their use of technology in lesson planning is found on Table 6 in the 6Assessment Report The selected Lesson Plan component data are reported in 12Standard 1 Tables (p 12) Additionally the 6Assessment Report provides data from the Novice Teacher Survey SOE graduates rated themselves as well-prepared in the use instructional technology which is above the ADE mean Although the 6Assessment Report (p 35) indicates candidates demonstrate knowledge of effective teaching techniques and how to utilize technology (criteria 3 11) faculty plan to include a unit on assistive technology in the technology course

The SOE faculty were trained to be edTPA local evaluators in fall 2015 The SOE is establishing inter-rater reliability by selecting candidate portfolios to be submitted to edTPA national scorers Thus far a total of 10 candidate portfolios have been submitted for external evaluation Those submitted prior to fall 2015 during the pilot period were randomly selected In fall 2015 only those who were rated highest by the local evaluators were submitted for external evaluation to establish interrater reliability Arkansas does not require edTPA and UAFS is the only public EPP using it at the undergraduate level Arkansas has established the passing score at 37 or 32 depending on the number of rubrics Based on that score and beginning with the fall 2015 full implementation date 100 of the SOE submissions met the required passing score

The SOE made many significant changes since fall 2014 beginning with restructuring the governance structure The College of Education became a School of Education housed in the College of STEM ADE also made significant program and licensure changes during 2014 and NCATE was transitioning to CAEP The SOE hired an educational consultant to complete an analysis of the quality assurance system The reports (20SWOT Analysis 21Key Findings) provided the faculty an opportunity to critically review the QAS and make needed improvements As noted by the 20SWOT Analysis 4Minutes the 7Candidate Manual the 6Assessment Report the alignment charts revised assessments the 3Assessment Manual and the timeline of changes it is apparent the SOE has made significant improvements Several programs were redesigned to meet ADE licensure requirements At the 2016 Faculty Retreat faculty and TEC members reviewed the data and noted a decrease in FFT 4c -communicating with families Candidates who attended the meeting agreed they felt under-prepared in communicating with parents They identified this area for the CAEP Selected Improvement Plan (SIP) submitted in this Self-Study Another weakness was noted in the Diversity Case Study data The SOE candidates scores dropped from 2014 to 2016 A study of the SOE practicum candidates understanding of diversity conducted by an adjunct professor (22Lehman Study) indicates a weakness in the area of diversity The new K-6 program of study includes an additional special education course focusing on differentiation The faculty will continue to monitor these areas

Data indicate candidates are strong in content and pedagogical knowledge and demonstrate effective instructional planning skills based on the needs of their students Overall based on multiple academic and non-academic measures both formative and summative UAFS SOE candidates are performing at or


above target level

Specialty Licensure Area Data

Program Review Option (per state partnership agreement)CAEP Program Review with National Recognition (SPA)CAEP Program Review with Feedback (State-selected standards)State Program Review (State-selected standards)

Answer the following prompts for programs reviewed for National Recognition (SPA) and Program Review with Feedback Upload state reports for state reviewed programs

1 Based on the analysis of the disaggregated data how have the results of specialty licensure area or SPA evidence been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes

The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requires program approval for all licensure areas The EPP must submit a matrix for each program showing its alignment to state competencies for the discipline the ADE Teaching Standards (InTASC) and the Teacher Evaluation and Support System (TESS) components When new Praxis tests are adopted by ADE university faculty participate in critiquing and approving the tests The UAFS School of Education encourages faculty from each discipline to take the Praxis specialty area exam to ensure the programs of study are aligned with the licensure tests

The SOE Teacher Education Council (TEC) is comprised of representatives from the public schools candidates in the teacher education program SOE faculty and faculty from the specialty areas The Assessment Coordinator reports to the TEC each semester and is always available to answer questions concerning the unit wide assessments The Administrative Analyst is always available to provide Praxis data for each program area As noted in the Assessment Manual the SOE made significant changes in the Quality Assurance System during 2014-2016 Several unit assessments were changed based on a SWOT analysis of the system and ADE licensure and policy changes Two major changes were the adoption of the Danielson FFT assessments and the edTPA Portfolio Faculty from all areas approved both unit wide assessments in 2015 ADE requires all teachers in Arkansas to be trained in the FFT which is used as the evaluation for all educators All pre-service teachers must also be trained in the framework which provides a seamless transition from pre-service teacher to classroom teacher The edTPA Portfolio differentiates for each specialty area and prepares pre-service teachers in their disciplines academic language The disaggregated data are reported in the Assessment Report and faculty are encouraged to use the data to improve programs The SOE Alignment Chart aligns InTASC (SOE Intended Candidate Outcomes) Danielson FFT edTPA and SOE Dispositions Faculty can track discipline level candidates scores to the specific question in edTPA andor the specific component in the FFT If further analysis is needed they can ask the Administrative Analyst for a specific candidates scores They can dig deep into the data to identify data to very specific skills

The ADE does not require EPPS to have National Recognition for its specialty licensure area programs However UAFS School of Education has consistently sought SPA approval for each program Faculty in each program analyze its SPA report for program improvement The SOE has copies of each report on file Several programs use unit-wide assessments in their SPA reports The status of each specialty licensure programs is listed below


HistorySocial Studies (NCSS) --- Recognized 7-30-14Mathematics (NCTM) --- Recognized 7-31-14Middle Childhood (AMLE) --- Recognized 7-30-14English (NCTE) --- Recognized - 8-1-16 Spanish (ACTFL) --- Recognized - 2-1-16Biology (NSTA) --- Recognized with Conditions - 8-1-14 The Biology with Teacher Licensure Program has been a low-enrollment program although efforts have been made to recruit into this teacher shortage area ADE made several changes in licensure programs in 2014 which required changes in the Biology with Teacher Licensure Program The revised program of study was approved by ADE on 2-5-16 The Biology faculty plan to submit the program to NSTA for national recognition Early Childhood (NAEYC) --- Recognized 7-14-09 The ECED Program was discontinued by ADE and candidates were not admitted after fall 2015 The last P-4 candidates should complete the program by spring 2018 The K-6 Program was added in fall 2015 and the first completers are expected in 2018 The SOE has been waiting for CAEP to complete its elementary standards A SOE representative will attend the CAEP 2016 Fall Conference to learn more about the process The SOE plans to submit the SPA in 2017

State Approved Programs Music Education Instrumental K-12 and Music Education Vocal K-12 Since music does not have a SPA the ADE approves it for licensure

Endorsements Special Education P-4 and 4-12 (CEC) Recognized - 8-1-14 This program of study was an endorsement to be added to an existing teacher licensure The program was deleted in 2014 due to a change in ADE licensure and low-enrollment

2 Based on the analysis of specialty licensure area data how have individual licensure areas used data for change

In 2014 the ADE made significant program and licensure changes which required EPPs to make significant program changes EPPs were required to submit new programs of study proposals aligned with the curriculum competencies for the discipline Arkansas Teaching Standards (ATS which are InTASC) and the Teacher Excellence Support System (TESS) Components The competencies were aligned with SPA Standards and Praxis exams Faculty began mapping curriculum in 2014-15 They submitted several program proposals to ADE for approval that year Other programs made changes based on curriculum mapping The English Teacher Licensure faculty analyzed its program of study and made several course changes based on the analysis The Mathematics Teacher Licensure faculty reviewed its 7-12 4-8 and P-4 courses to identify areas for improvement and to identify courses to implement the edTPA Portfolio The Spanish with Teacher Licensure Program reviewed the data and made several program changes

Faculty have always been cognizant of the teacher licensure exams They have monitored the exams and revised curriculum as needed The Middle Childhood program made extensive changes based on ADE licensure requirements Additionally the new K-6 program of study was approved and implemented in 2015 It has no completers at this time The faculty are closely monitoring the new programs to identify areas of strength and weaknesses

ADE reports an Educator Preparation Provider Report (EPPR) each year for each EPP in the state The EPP reports the Praxis data for first time test takers in each licensure area The report can be somewhat misleading because of the testing windows and the difficulty in identifying and deleting candidates who shouldnt be on the EPP roster Specifically candidates who graduate from UAFS (non-education degree) and enter a non-traditional licensure program are sometimes grouped with UAFS test-takers The ADE is implementing policies this year that should assist EPPs in the deletion process The EPP reports are shared with faculty and reported to the TEC Kathy Pruner from ETS showed faculty ways to


utilize the data more effectively Faculty are able to dig into the data to identify patterns which can lead to program improvement Several discipline level faculty provide test preparation sessions for candidates Additionally candidates are provided resources to assist them in their preparation However the SOE discussed the need to provide more preparation sessions for the candidates specifically in test-taking strategies The SOE has requested assistance from the STEM Education specialists and the Guy Fenter Educational Service Cooperative specialists Beginning fall 2016 the specialists at the cooperative have agreed to partner with the SOE to assist struggling candidates The SOE also noted a slight decrease in the PLT test scores and discussed implementing PLT test preparation sessions in fall 2016

The SOE requires its candidates to pass both the Praxis specialty area exam and the Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) exam for admission into Internship SOE faculty recognize the time and financial challenges this poses for candidates particularly the non-traditional candidates With this in mind they plan to offer test-taking strategy sessions early in the program to better prepare the candidates in those important skills In spring 2016 the SOE hired a LiveText consultant to present a training to the SOE faculty and the specialty area faculty The goal of the training was to support the faculty in the use of LiveText and its data analysis functions By using LiveText ETS resources and partners the SOE will be able to better assist candidates as they progress through the Teacher Education Program

3 For Program Review with Feedback only How does the specialty licensure area data align with and provide evidence for meeting the state-selected standardsNA

4 For National Recognition only How are SPA reports that are not Nationally Recognized being addressedAs noted earlier the Biology with Teacher Licensure program is a low-enrollment program ADE made several changes in the program of study requirements in 2014-2015 UAFS resubmitted its program to ADE in 2015 to meet the new requirements It was approved in 2016 Biology faculty plan to resubmit for national recognition in fall 2016

Since ADE changed the licensure from PK-Grade 4 to K-6 in 2014 UAFS had made the required changes in its program of study The PK-Grade 4 program is being phased out and the last candidates should graduate by spring 2018 Candidates in the PK-Grade 4 program were given the opportunity to switch to the K-6 program in fall 2015 A few candidates decided to switch therefore there are a few candidates in the K-6 program of study The PK-Grade 4 program is recognized by NAEYC through the CAEP visit in 2017 A faculty member is attending the CAEP 2016 Conference to learn more about the CAEP Elementary Standards The SOE will submit the report in spring 2017 for national recognition (depending on CAEPs approval of the Elementary Standards)

State Review Only Upload State Program Reports here

Standard 2 Clinical Partnership and Practice

i Evidencedatatables (Upload each item of evidence under the appropriate components of the standard)

1 1Unit Alignment

21 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships

2 2CAEP Alignment






22 Partners co-select prepare evaluate support and retain high-quality clinical educators

5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams

23 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences

7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes


12 24Orientation Meetings


13 25Faculty Retreat


14 26MOU


15 27Internship Handbook


16 28Disposition Minutes


17 29Disposition Assessment


18 30Disposition Rubric


19 31PDS Partnership


20


32Licensure Regs




22 34Partnership Map


23 35Partnership Document


24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan


27 39Recruitment and Retention Plan



The UA Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) invites P-12 stakeholders to participate in teacher candidates clinical preparation through several different means such as Teacher Education Council (TEC) and Teacher Credentials and Standards Committee (TCSC) 23Minutes 24Orientation Meetings each semester for university supervisors P-12 mentors and interns and annual 25Faculty Retreats in which P-12 educators are invited to collaborate in decision-making to improve clinical experiences In June 2015 representatives from partner schools contributed ideas for revisions to the SOEs lesson plan format (25Faculty Retreat) In addition to this collaboration P-12 schools sign a Memorandum of Understanding (26MOU) that outlines the universitys and school districts general policies and understandings for all clinical experiences These expectations are outlined and specifically described in the 7Candidate Manual and 27Internship Handbook The SOE assesses the candidates dispositions for teaching from the first education course through Internship The disposition assessment was revised by an adhoc TEC Committee in 2013 and implemented in spring 2014 (28Disposition Minutes) The 29Disposition Assessment (7Candidate Manual pp 27-30 6Assessment Report pp 24-27) allows faculty to track candidates dispositions The aggregate data provide valuable insight in trends and patterns However the most important information gleaned from this assessment is the identification of individual candidates who are not performing at target level thus allowing for appropriate and timely interventions The 29Disposition Assessment criteria and 30Disposition Rubric a Non-Academic Requirement are introduced in the Introduction to Education course and outlined in the 7Candidate Manual Other non-academic requirements are listed in the 11Non-Academics Requirements Resources along with evaluation forms are accessible online in LiveText Field Experience Module (FEM) LiveText allows university supervisors pre-service teachers and P-12 clinical educatorsmentors to collaborate communicate share documents and evaluations electronically The SOE invites P-12 partners to assist in interviewing applicants for admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP) each semester In this way P-12 teachersadministrators provide input regarding the quality of teacher


candidates The SOE has partnered with two school districts to establish Professional Development Schools (PDS) in which teacher candidates attend university classes taught by SOE professors within the public school building and regularly observe and participate in classrooms (31PDS Partnership)

Candidates competencies are assessed in Practicum I and II (formative) and Internship (summative) by both clinical educatormentor teachers and university supervisors using the Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) assessment rubrics and edTPA portfolio rubrics The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requires all teachers in Arkansas to be trained in the FFT and it is used as the teacher evaluation instrument in the public schools SOE candidates are introduced to the FFT components in the Introduction to Education course and they are reinforced in all education courses The scoring rubrics are introduced to candidates in Practicum I and they are used to assess candidates in all clinical experiences The four domains and 22 components have been crosswalked with the edTPA Portfolio assignments and assessment rubrics Faculty and university supervisors complete trainings to use the both assessments and inter-rater reliability activities to hone their skills in using the instruments All mentor teachers must be proficient in the use of the FFT assessment FFT and edTPA both proprietary assessments are used both formatively and summatively to monitor each candidates proficiency as they progress through the program The data are reported in the annual 6Assessment Report (pp 28-34 amp 47-55) Coherence across clinical and academic components is maintained incrementally as students complete formative tasks in edTPA (1Unit Alignment 2CAEP Alignment) Summatively candidates complete all three edTPA tasks during Internship At the conclusion of Internship mentor teachers interns and university supervisors conduct a three-way conference based upon shared evidence from performance assessments derived from FFT criteria (6Assessment Report pp 22-23) Dispositions of the candidate are assessed in LiveText at this time by all three conference participants The SOE in conjunction with clinical partners select clinical educatorsmentors who are highly effective based on the ADEs 32Licensure Regs To identify high quality clinical educatorsmentors the SOE surveys interns and university supervisors regarding their perceptions of mentors in order to highlight trends that might lead to retention of or alternate selections To support and retain high-quality mentors the SOE provides face-to-face and electronic orientation options at the beginning of each semester The orientations outline expectations for both mentor and intern Mentors and university supervisors complete an online survey at the end of the semester in which they are given the opportunity to evaluate the quality of the internship experience (6Assessment Report p 56) The survey results indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the internship experience and drive a shared decision-making process to affect program changes In addition to these requirements the SOE collaborates with P-12 building administrators to effectively assign mentor and interns based on common characteristics andor dispositions such as content knowledge interests personalities and cultural backgrounds The SOE collaborates with P-12 partners in multiple ways including the annual Faculty Retreat to which school administrators alumni and teachers are invited quarterly meetings of the Teacher Education Council and the Teacher Credentials and Standards Committee (23Minutes) During these meetings the SOE and school partners discuss strengths and weaknesses in the education program For example the idea of a PDS originated in a TEC meeting and evolved to the current establishment of three PDS sites Candidates are expected to complete three levels of clinical experiences Practicum I Practicum II and Internship The placements in P-12 schools must meet ADE 32Licensure Regs and must include at least one experience in each of the following settings demographically diverse ruralsmall school suburbanurban school and one placement in lower and one in upper licensure grade levels 33Standard 2 Tables provide information about site selection type of experience length of experience and course expectations to ensure candidates meet program and licensure requirements The tables provide relevant information regarding objectives for each course requiring clinical experiences as well as how technology and diversity are addressed The 34Partnership Map provides a visual of the SOE placement sites Observation hours are logged in LiveText and approved by clinical educatorsmentors Formative and summative assessment data for each candidate are tracked throughout the clinical experiences Target levels increase as candidates progress through Practicum I Practicum II and Internship SOE faculty are able to track the developing effectiveness and positive impact candidates are having on all of


their P-12 students learning and development Candidates create an integrated unit of study (edTPA Task 1) teach the unit using differentiated lessons for their particular students (edTPA Task 2) and assess their impact on student learning by providing student work samples (edTPA Task 3) The 6Assessment Report pp 28-34 indicates candidates are scoring at the Target level During Internship if a candidate does not meet target a backup reviewer scores the assignments to ensure accuracy The SOE and its partners have made significant positive changes in the programs over the past three years (3Assessment Manual pp 6-12) Evidence in the following documents demonstrate the level of interaction between the SOE and its partners 23Minutes 25Faculty Retreat 35Partnership Document and 36At Risk Table 37Plan of Action A major change recommended by the school partners was revising the lesson plan Additionally partners had input into creating the 38Strategic Plan and 39Recruitment and Retention Plan Other changes include implementation of the Danielson FFT and edTPA Portfolio which provide partnership opportunities for faculty candidates university supervisors and clinical educatorsmentors Establishment of three PDS sites in two districts was a monumental change which culminated from shared vision and collaborative partnerships As noted by the evidence submitted it is obvious the SOE seeks partnerships to prepare effective educators

Standard 3 Candidate Quality Recruitment and Selectivity


1 1Unit Alignment

34 Creates and monitors candidate progress

2 2CAEP Alignment



33 Monitors attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability

4 4Minutes



35 Candidate positive impacts on P-12 students

6 7Candidate Manual

36 Candidates understand the expectation of the profession

7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports



32 Sets selective admission requirements












15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs



31 Recruits and supports high-quality and diverse candidate pool



21 38Strategic Plan




23 40To Become a Teacher


24 41Demographics Table


25 42Minutes


26 43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships


27 44Faculty Database


28 45Diversity Case Study


29


46Diversity Rubric


30 47ACT Scoring Scale


31 48Interview Questions


32 49Interview Rubric


33 50Danielson Framework for Teaching


34 51ADE Policies Governing Programs for Educator Licensure


35 52CAEP Annual Reports


36 53Title II Reports


37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report



UA Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) faculty recognize the importance of recruiting high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations and supporting them to completion In 2016 40To Become a Teacher rated UAFS SOE as the second best EPP in Arkansas Its Expense Score was 10 Acceptance Rate 7 and ROIValue 10 with 10 being the highest rating in each area However the SOE also recognizes challenges in this area The most current demographic data for Fort Smith indicate 632 of the residents are White 17 are Hispanic and 85 are African-American (httpwwwarkansas-demographicscomfort-smith-demographics) Table 4 in 33Standard 2 Tables identify the racial makeup of the School of Education (SOE) partner schools 41Demographics Table provides a snapshot of the UAFS student population the SOE enrollees the Arkansas (AR) EPP enrollees UAFS SOE faculty AR teachers AR students and the general population in Fort Smith As noted in the table there are differences between the demographic makeup of the SOE teacher candidates and the general population The challenge has been discussed in faculty and TEC meetings (42Minutes) and steps have been taken to recruit a more diverse student population

As noted in 43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships a brief summary document of many of the SOE initiatives the faculty have taken a proactive approach The SOE faculty have sought partnerships and collaborations that will lead to recruiting quality candidates into the teaching profession as outlined in the document and presented in this narrative They have actively participated in high school college fairs recruitment events and local school committees SOE events for high school students


partnerships alumni events and Advancement Council activities The SOE has been responsive to the needs of its partner schools in regards to preparing teachers to work with diverse K-12 students As noted in the minutes and the document referenced above the SOE has worked with its partner schools to create a Special Education Resource Teacher endorsement to meet the shortage of qualified teachers who work with the diverse student population Additionally the SOE has partnered with the Western Arkansas Technology Center (WATC) to provide area high school juniors and seniors with the unique opportunity to earn college credit andor credentials in Early Childhood Education while still in high school (httpacademicsuafseduwatcearly-childhood-education) Another partnership is with the Educational Renewal Zone (ERZ) located on the UAFS campus (httpseducationuafsedueducation-renewal-zoneerz-home-page) ERZ provides multiple opportunities for SOE faculty to collaborate with K-12 partners Each collaboration provides the SOE an opportunity to recruit future teachers

Retention is another challenge in teacher preparation The SOE has policies and procedures in place to identify candidates who may be at-risk and to provide resources to help them be successful (7Candidate Manual) Additionally resources are available to enhance the educational opportunities for SOE pre-service teachers The Babb Center for Student Professional Development (CSPD) provides education majors multiple opportunities to hone their professional skills (httpacademicsuafseduCSPDbabb-center-student-professional-development-home) The CSPD offers a variety of services connecting students with employers thereby supplying local and regional employers with highly valued professional employment candidates The CSPD hosts trainings and mixers for SOE pre-service teachers (43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships) These efforts provide another avenue to retain pre-service teachers by providing the supports they need to succeed It also provides an opportunity to meet the employment needs of the public school partners Another partnership is with the STEM Education Center located on the UAFS campus (httpseducationuafsedueducationuafs-stem-education-center) Math and Science Specialists provide professional development in science technology engineering and mathematics content for Arkansas pre-service and certified teachers as well as technology trainings for the UAFS faculty SOE faculty and pre-service teachers utilize the resource center and the expertise of the specialists (43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships)

Another aspect of recruitment is ensuring SOE pre-service teachers are prepared to teach a diverse population Their role in recruitment is vital because they represent the teaching profession to the K-12 students they teach as they provide a quality education that will prepare them to be productive citizens An adjunct faculty member conducted a qualitative research study using UAFS early childhood education pre-service teachers (22Lehmans Study) The studys focus was the gap between the increased cultural diversity of students and the level of competence of UAFS early childhood education pre-service teachers She reported her findings to the faculty (42Minutes) The research provided ideas and strategies for program improvement The faculty also recognize the importance of having a diverse faculty and efforts have been made to recruit a more diverse SOE faculty Recruitment efforts have increased the diversity to approximately 46 diverse however gender diversity is still a challenge (44Faculty Database) In order to have diverse high-quality candidates in the future we must be able to provide engaging educational opportunities for the diverse students in our P-12 public schools Diversity is woven throughout the program (1Unit Alignment 12Standard 1 Tables 16Required Courses Chart 18Field Experiences Tables) with a checkpoint at Gate 4 All candidates complete a 45Diversity Case Study (46Diversity Rubric) The assessment has been in place for several years and has provided faculty consistent data (6Assessment Report p 16)

In Spring 2016 the SOE faculty created both a 38Strategic Plan and a 39Recruitment and Retention Plan The 38Strategic Plan is based on the UAFS Academic Affairs Goals The 39Recruitment and Retention Plan outlines specific objectives with a timeline to recruit and retain a diverse student population Several initiatives have already been implemented as noted in the plan

UAFS SOE admission requirements are outlined in the 7Candidate Manual 11Non-Academic


Requirements provides a summary of additional requirements Copies of admission forms are provided in the 7Candidate Manual pp 54-65 Candidates are given the 7Candidate Manual and a packet containing all admission forms when they take Introduction to Education the first education course in the Teacher Education Program (TEP) The requirements for unconditional admission to the undergraduate teacher education program are outlined in the 7Candidate Manual p 38 Typically candidates are admitted to the TEP during their sophomore year 10GPA and ACT Table reports the cumulative GPA mean for the SOE candidates upon admission to (TEP) for Spring 2013-Spring 2016 The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 32Licensure Regs require a 270 GPA (on a 40 scale) which is below the UAFS SOE requirement of 275 GPA SOE candidates mean GPA scores for all seven cohorts are above CAEPs 30 GPA requirement A further analysis of the table indicates all discipline area cohorts consistently met the CAEP 30 GPA requirement The SOE Composite ACT Mean scores upon admission to the TEP from spring 2013-Spring 2016 are reported by discipline level and SOE totals As noted in the discipline cohort scores the scores range from 18-30 The total mean scores range from 22-25 for the seven cohorts To determine the percentile ranking the SOE used the 47ACT Scoring Scale The scoring guide was used to determine the percentile rankings for the SOE Spring 2013 to spring 2016 candidates The percentiles are reported by discipline area means As noted in the table the cohorts scored well above the 50th percentile Based on the GPA data and the ACT data it is apparent the UAFS SOE is recruiting capable candidates into the programs

Candidates must also complete an interview for admission into the TEP Admission interviews are held each fall and spring Candidates are interviewed by faculty and public school partner representatives and scored using a rubric (48Interview Questions and 49Interview Rubric) The results are kept in LiveText and reported in the 6Assessment Report p 4 Candidates may be admitted with conditions if an area of concern is identified thereby allowing the faculty to provide support andor resources to assist the candidate Candidates must pass the Praxis Core assessments (or required ACT scores) for admission into the TEP SOE monitors its candidates as they progress through the program using both academic and academic measures Requirements for Retention in the TEP are listed on p 38 of the 7Candidate Manual

Dr Lance Tomei an educational consultant was hired in fall 2014 to conduct a SWOT analysis of the SOE Quality Assurance System (20SWOT Analysis) Based on the SWOT report SOE faculty and partners attended a Faculty Retreat in June 2015 and revisited the assessment system and rubrics The 7Candidate Manual and 3Assessment Manual outline the gates and process for tracking candidates throughout the program Candidates are assessed by the faculty university supervisors and clinical practice supervisors each semester in education courses and field placements using the 50Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) and the 29Disposition Assessment (7Candidate Manual pp 26-30) edTPA assignments and other unit assessments both academic and non-academic The data are used to identify candidates who are not meeting target on unit assessments

The 51ADE Policies Governing Programs for Educator Licensure offered by institutions of higher education require candidates who apply for a teaching license to have an appropriate disposition for teaching (32Licensure Regs) A major non-academic assessment is the Disposition Assessment which begins with the Introduction to Education and continues throughout the program SOE faculty and partners invested time and effort to research appropriate teacher dispositions and create the rubrics to appropriately assess them (28Disposition Minutes) Candidates are tracked by number of reports and level of proficiency each semester Appropriate action is taken based on the process outlined in the Teacher Candidate Manual The revised process has been in place for two years and has produced positive results As noted in the 7Candidate Manual pp 66-72 the tracking system provides the SOE an opportunity to intervene with candidates who are not reflecting professional dispositions The 17At Risk Candidates Summary provides a summary of academic and non-academic appeals andor plans of action The retention of SOE admitted candidates who completed their program of study from 2012-2016 is approximately 75 The number of dispositional plans-of-action have increased due to the tracking


system Dispositions are also assessed using Danielsons Framework (FFT) which are aligned with InTASC (1Unit Alignment) Candidates are assessed by faculty clinical practice supervisors and university supervisors throughout the program using the Danielson FFT Progression data from Practicum I through Internship are found on pp 47-55 of the 6Assessment Report Faculty have found candidates who are identified as at-risk on the Disposition Assessment also have difficulty in Danielson FFT Domain 4 - Professionalism The Coordinator of Teacher Licensure and Field Experiences conducts a one-to-one Internship Interview prior to placement and any dispositional issues are discussed and must be resolved before Internship The interview also assesses the candidates dispositions (6Assessment Report p 35) and candidates complete a self-assessment (6Assessment Report pp 7-11)

Diversity is interwoven throughout the Disposition Assessment and the FFT assessment (1Unit Alignment) Another assessment used to address Diversity is the 46Diversity Rubric (6Assessment Report p 16) Additionally candidates complete the edTPA Portfolio which has a diversity component in Task One (6Assessment Report pp 28-34) The SOE has several admission into Internship requirements including passing scores on both 8Licensure Exams (6Assessment Report p 46 and 7Candidate Manual pp 42-43) As outlined in this narrative and in the evidence provided multiple academic and non-academic assessments are used throughout the program to assess knowledge skills and disposition

The SOE Quality Assurance System provides an efficient and effective means to gather data to monitor applicants and candidates as they progress through the program Banner and LiveText are used to house the data Data are disseminated to faculty public school partners and the general public through several avenues The following annual reports are used to monitor candidates and the TEP SOE 6Assessment Report ADE 9EPP Reports 52CAEP Annual Reports 53Title II Reports and 54PEDS Reports Program and assessment changes are made as needed based on the data For example the admission process was revised in 2014 to gather GPA and ACT data Each year SOE reports its progress toward meeting annual goals in the preparation of Math Science and Special Education and Limited English Proficient educators in the Title II reports (9EPP Reports 52CAEP Annual Reports 53Title II Reports)

The SOE added a special education endorsement in response to the critical need for special education teachers SOE is receptive to the needs of its school partners in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma (35Partner Map) Public school administrators serve on TEC TCSC Principal Roundtable Admission Interviews and other SOE committees Likewise SOE faculty serve on various public school committees The SOE ERZ and STEM Education work together to create recruitment and retention opportunities Adopt-A-Professor recruitment fairs grants and other partnerships have been valuable in increasing the number of candidates in science and mathematics education Additionally the SOE and Arkansas public schools use the same assessment instrument Danielson FFT Faculty were trained in Danielson FFT and edTPA Local Evaluation in fall 2014 and recalibrated during 2015-2016 Inter-rater reliability activities have been conducted each semester Sample edTPA portfolios have been submitted for external evaluation to establish inter-rater reliability (55QAS Report)

Non-academic measures are also used to monitor candidate performance Disposition data have enabled the SOE to identify candidates who are at-risk and take appropriate measures The revised Disposition Assessment has been administered for five semesters and has been consistent with other metrics in identifying candidates who have demonstrated deficiencies andor concerns

The 6Assessment Report provides four years of data from admissions through completion Using multiple formative and summative measures both academic and non-academic candidates content knowledge skills and dispositions are assessed and monitored throughout the program Candidates must successfully pass Praxis Specialty assessments and the Praxis Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) for admission into Internship Therefore candidates must demonstrate expertise in the discipline Candidates are evaluated using the FFT multiple times throughout their preparation both formatively


and summatively The target level of performance is scaffolded from Practicum I Practicum II and Internship allowing for growth in their teaching skills Candidates complete an edTPA portfolio which includes creating teaching and assessing a unit of study They must be able to provide evidence of a positive impact on student learning Candidates have multiple opportunities to understand the expectations of the profession beginning with the Introduction to Education courses Professionalism is addressed in multiple classes demonstrated in field experiences and assessed in multiple ways (2CAEPAlignment) particularly FFT Domain 4 All candidates complete a course in special education and educational technology Diversity and Technology are addressed and assessed in core and education courses as noted in documents 12Standard 1 Tables 16Required Courses Chart and 18Field Experiences Table All ADE licensure requirements must be met before candidates are recommended for licensure Trainings are conducted during the Seminar class for Teen Suicide Prevention Child Maltreatment Code of Ethics for Arkansas Educators Parental Involvement Dyslexia Awareness Child Maltreatment and TESS (Danielson FFT)

Based on the evidence documented it is apparent SOE recruits and supports high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations Although the admitted pool of candidates does not reflect the diversity of the P-12 students in its partnership schools the SOE is making focused and strategic efforts to reach out to the underserved populations and recruit viable candidates who can represent those populations and serve as role models for future teachers Poverty is a reality for many of the UAFS SOE candidates from all populations therefore faculty are cognizant of the challenges they face and they make efforts to assist them and all candidates in fulfilling their professional goals

Standard 4 Program Impact


1 1Unit Alignment

42 Completer effectiveness via observations andor student surveys


41 Completer impact on student growth and learning

3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports







43 Employer satisfaction

8 56IRB Case Study


9 57Alumni Panel Focus Groups



10 58Pilot Group


11 59Guy Fenter Educational Cooperative Partnership


12 60Informed Consent


13 61Impact on Student Learning Pilot Study


14 62IRB Approval


15 63Employer Survey


16 64Intern Exit Interview

44 Completer satisfaction

17 65Graduate Surveys



The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) does not collect disaggregate or disseminate data specific to individual teachers within a school district making it difficult for Education Preparation Providers (EPPs) to gather data based on completers contributions to student learning growth such as value-added modeling (VAM) or student growth percentiles tied to individual teachers [completers of University of Arkansas - Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) program] Consequently in order to provide evidence of completers teaching effectiveness and positive impact on student learning the SOE has chosen to collect a variety of evidence supplied by completers to show how they have impacted students learning within their classrooms Examples of multiple measures are completers Teacher Excellence Support System (TESS) annual evaluations survey data from principals and completers and an analysis of the evidence completers submit to demonstrate improvement in academic achievement of their students The last measure of completers evidence of students growth will be gathered by way of voluntary participation in collaborative cohorts facilitated online Data measuring student academic growth related to the Arkansas State Standards will be exchanged for SOE faculty support The exchange of individual completers student data for SOE faculty support will be the topic of an IRB-approved case study designed to collect and analyze evidence of completers teaching effectiveness over a three-year period

As noted earlier EPPs in Arkansas do not have access from the ADE regarding completers impact on P-12 student learning Consequently the SOE uses the Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) assessment to evaluate teacher effectiveness The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requires all teachers in Arkansas to be trained in the FFT and it is used as the teacher evaluation instrument in the public schools (TESS) 50Danielsons Framework for Teaching is a proprietary assessment and has been determined to be reliable and valid The SOE uses the Danielson assessment to formatively and summatively assess candidates at three levels of pre-service clinical experiences Practicum I Practicum


II and Internship Data specific to each pre-service teachers impact on student learning are collected in LiveText and reported in the annual 6Assessment Report pp 22-23 47-55 Specific criteria relevant to each teachers impact on student learning is found in 1f Designing Student Assessment 3a Communicating with Students 3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3c Engaging Students in Learning 3d Using Assessment in Instruction and 4a Reflecting on Teaching The SOE has limited data from completers (6Assessment Report pp 57-61)

The SOE approved 56IRB Case Study requests that participants share their TESS evaluations completed by building principals Although the ADE requires school districts to collect TESS evaluation data on all Arkansas teachers the department does not collect or share the data on individual teachers with EPPs The Case Study was formulated using the following steps conducted a focus group of alumni to identify what school partners require from teachers to demonstrate their impact on student learning (57Alumni Panel Focus Groups) contacted graduates and asked if they would be willing to share their annual TESS evaluation scores (58Pilot Group) submitted a proposal to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval to conduct a three-year case study of SOE graduates to determine their impact on student learning partnered with the 59Guy Fenter Educational Cooperative Partnership to offer professional development for graduates in the case study and requested the 2016 interns to participate (60Informed Consent 61Impact on Student Learning Pilot Study) The SOE received approval from the IRB to complete a case study involving completers within their first three years of teaching (62IRB Approval) The first of three planned focus groups was recruited from the spring 2016 graduating class Approximately 40 graduates volunteered to participate in the study which will follow them through their first three years of teaching A new cohort will be recruited each academic year allowing the SOE to gather data specifically related to the impact each completer has on student learning within his or her classroom It is expected that completers will provide many different forms of alternative authentic formative and summative assessments in order to document their impact on student learning Based on the feedback received the SOE will phase in standardized assessments developed by a collaboration among completers and faculty members For example student surveys course projects end of course exams standardized developmental readingmath assessments andor standardized exams might be used as evidence of completers impact on student learning This case study provides a means by which the SOE can collect the TESS data from completers and in return provide opportunities for collaboration among completers university faculty and K-12 partners

Since UAFS is located on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma many graduates find employment in Oklahoma where teacher effectiveness evaluations are not standardized However the criteria used in surrounding school districts are often based on research (Marzano 2012) similar to Charlotte Danielsons FFT and can be directly aligned to the TESS evaluation form used by Arkansas and the SOE at UAFS In addition to the observation evaluations pre-service teacher candidates are evaluated on their effectiveness in impacting student learning using data collected from edTPA Task 2 Instruction completed as a formative assessment in Practicum II and as a summative assessment during Internship and in Task 3 Assessment in an assessment course (formative assessment) prior to Internship and again during Internship (summative) when candidates are required to complete edTPA Portfolio Tasks (1 Planning 2 Instruction 3 Assessment) Task 2 asks teacher candidates to demonstrate their abilities to create a safe and respectful learning environment engage students in learning deepen student learning facilitate students analysis of content and to reflect on and analyze their own teaching effectiveness in order to improve pedagogically The edTPA Task 3 asks teacher candidates to analyze student learning provide feedback to guide learning observe students use of feedback analyze students use of academic vocabulary and use assessment to inform instruction Feedback from this assessment provides quantitative data (edTPA 6Assessment Report pp 28-34) which can be analyzed by the SOE to determine how effectively candidates are impacting their students learning and to affect changes in the program in areas in need of improvement

The UAFS SOE identified seven professional dispositions and developed rubrics by which candidates


are evaluated each semester by all faculty teaching education courses (6Assessment Report pp 24-27 7Candidate Manual pp 26-30 28Disposition Minutes) The dispositions collaboration reflection integrity learning initiative responsibility respect and diversity are emphasized at the beginning of each course and are aligned with the FFT assessment (1Unit Alignment) Analysis of the pre-service teacher candidate data allow faculty to address growth areas needed by individual teacher candidates and to create Plans of Action to facilitate the candidates successful completion of the program (7Candidate Manual pp 66-72 17At Risk Candidates Summary) The alignment with FFT also allows the SOE to measure whether completers are effectively applying the professional knowledge skills and dispositions that the preparation experiences were designed to achieve Analysis of the TESS evaluation data received from completers allows the SOE to measure the degree to which they are applying the professional knowledge skills and dispositions in practice The 58Pilot Group data provided a positive snapshot of graduates level effectiveness As noted earlier the SOE sends building principals an employer survey at the end of UAFS Teacher Education Program completers induction year (6Assessment Report Employer Survey pp 40-44 and Graduates Impact on Student Learning Data pp 58-62) Principals are asked to evaluate how well each novice teacher was prepared to complete assigned responsibilities in working with P-12 students (63Employer Survey) The highly specific survey questions align with the SOEs Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs - InTASC Standards) Danielsons FFT and the edTPA Portfolio Data collected from these surveys are interpreted and analyzed collaboratively by the faculty and used to identify trends emerging over time that highlight program strengths and detect weaknesses Based on the resulting faculty recommendations made from evidence provided by the surveys program changes are made in curriculum and instruction In addition to the Employer Survey the approved 56IRB Case Study encourages participants to report any employment milestones such as being promoted andor retained earning advanced degrees serving in leadership roles and volunteering within the community all of which contribute to employers confidence in their professional competencies Although the Case Study is designed to collect data on completers during their first three years of teaching the SOE will also encourage them to plan a career trajectory that might include becoming National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) The SOE also collects data from its program completers regarding their professional preparation at UAFS The SOE administers the 64Intern Exit Interview (6Assessment Report p 38) to collect evidence that program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to their responsibilities as effective P-12 educators The data gathered in the survey indicate current graduates perceived levels of satisfaction with their preparation In addition to the current intern graduate surveys the SOE also sends 65Graduate Surveys to alumni who have completed one year of teaching and again to those who have completed three years of teaching (6Assessment Report pp 40-44) Another source of data used to determine completers satisfaction with their preparation is the 9EPP Reports which includes the results of a survey administered online by ADE asking teachers to evaluate their education preparation programs The data are collected by the ADE and the item analysis shows how UAFS SOE graduates responses compare and contrast with the state averages (6Assessment Report pp 57-58 and 9EPP Reports) Using the data allows SOE faculty to measure their effectiveness in relation to other EPPs in Arkansas For example in the 2014-2015 data UAFS SOE novice teachers scored higher than the state average in all criteria The data indicate UAFS-prepared novice teachers high degree of satisfaction with their teacher preparedness The ADE Novice Survey questions align with the SOEs ICOs (InTASC Standards) and Danielsons FFT The final source of evidence that completers consider their preparation relevant to the responsibilities they encounter teaching P-12 students and that their preparation was effective will be collected during the IRB approved Case Study The cohort of participants in the study will report employment milestones such as being promoted andor retained earning advanced degrees serving in leadership roles and volunteering within the community and how their teacher preparation program directly contributed to their professional growth The qualitative feedback from the case study participants will be analyzed by faculty to determine necessary program improvements Conclusions supported by the data will drive program changes

Standard 5 Provider Quality Continuous Improvement and Capacity



1 1Unit Alignment

51 Effective quality assurance system that monitors progress using multiple measures

2 2CAEP Alignment



52 Quality assurance system relies on measures yielding reliable valid and actionable data

4 4Minutes

55 Relevant stakeholders are involved in program evaluation

5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports

54 Measures of completer impact are analyzed shared and used in decision-making



10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis









53 Results for continuous program improvement are used



17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group


19 66Conceptual Framework


20 67Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Report


21 68Minutes


22 69CAEP 51 Assessment Loop

51 Effective quality assurance system that monitors progress using multiple measures54 Measures of completer impact are analyzed shared and used in decision-making

23 70Accreditation Report 2010


24 71Lesson Plan Minutes


25 72CAEP 54 Table



The UA Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) Quality Assurance System (QAS) is an ongoing process that uses multiple comprehensive and integrated assessment measures to evaluate the achievement of the SOE mission and goals In developing the system university faculty staff and the Pre K-12 community integrated ideas from their professional backgrounds The QAS provides data for use in decision making to determine applicant qualifications interpret aggregated data to monitor evaluate and improve instructional programs ensure and maintain the quality of candidates and graduate performance and manage and improve unit operations The QAS monitors candidates as they progress through their approved programs Both academic and non-academic data related to candidate and graduate performance are utilized in making needed changes in all aspects of the teacher preparation program Candidates are expected to demonstrate competency in all ten InTASC Standards (ICOs) The QAS is represented by a series of gates or benchmarks that must be cleared by candidates as they move through the program By successfully meeting the requirements at each gate candidates meet designated standards and complete their programs At each of those gates data are collected by multiple evaluators and multiple modes of assessment and instrumentation Candidates meet the program exit criteria and enter a continuous learning process Professional state and institutional standards and multiple assessment measures provide the support for the process and provide multiple assessment measures which provide continual feedback data for analysis at each level (1Unit Alignment 2CAEP Alignment 66Conceptual Framework) A detailed discussion of the validity and reliability of the instruments used in program assessment can be found in 55QAS Report Tables in 3Assessment Manual illustrate the decision points in the teacher education program Data are compiled and formally reported by the Assessment Coordinator to faculty and administrators semi-annually 67Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Reports provide additional data for


program improvement Faculty and administrators make recommendations to the Executive Director regarding program changes based upon their analysis of the data The Teacher Education Council (TEC) analyzes the data semi-annually and makes formal recommendations to the Executive Director Unit assessment data both academic and non-academic are collected throughout the year and housed in Banner Argos andor LiveText The Administrative Analyst collects the assessment data and submits aggregated reports to the Assessment Coordinator Title II Praxis Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) reports and other external data are also collected by SOE administrative personnel and reported to stakeholders The Assessment Coordinator compiles the data creates a semester report by cohort and presents it to the Education Coordinators Council (ECC) and the SOE faculty where it is analyzed for unit and program improvements The Assessment Coordinator meets with the ELEM MLED and Secondary Coordinators and faculty of each program area to review the data The Assessment Coordinator documents the strengths and weaknesses of the program in addition to the plans for improvement and presents a summary to the ECC SOE and TEC each fall The Assessment Coordinator also creates the 6Assessment Report and presents it to the TEC each fall The annual 6Assessment Report and all related data are posted on the SOE website Finally the QAS is reviewed each spring by ECC SOE and TEC Any changes are noted by the Assessment Coordinator and the 3Assessment Manual (pp 6-12) is updated to reflect the changes The updated Assessment Manual and the annual Assessment Report are presented to the TEC each fall (68Minutes) The cycle continues as demonstrated in the 69CAEP 51 Assessment Loop The QAS provides a structure for collecting data that are relevant verifiable representative cumulative and actionable The QAS has been revised when deemed appropriate and necessary by the stakeholders as noted in the timeline (3Assessment Manual pp 6-10) However the SOE Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) have not changed The ICOs are assessed by using multiple assessments throughout the program Both formative and summative assessments are used systematically to assess the performance of its candidates against the goals and relevant standards The QAS is based on seven gates to track candidate performance Gate One is the University General Admission Assessment Information generated from these measures is used in determining candidate course selection overall candidate advisement and curriculum design Gate Two is the pre-professional assessment that provides faculty an opportunity to complete an assessment of candidate ability prior to formal admission to the teacher education program Information generated from the assessment criteria in this gate is used to monitor the effectiveness of the general education curriculum advise candidates who may need additional assistance and monitor enrollment Gate Three is admission into the Teacher Education Program (TEP) Candidates must successfully meet admission requirements before enrolling in most professional education coursework in the early childhood middle childhood and secondary programs Multiple performance-based measures are used including appropriate Praxis Core scores in reading writing and mathematics and a satisfactory admission interview scored with a rubric In addition candidates must have a cumulative GPA of 275 and a grade of C or better in all courses in the degree plan Information generated from these measures is used to make admission decisions provide needed assistance to candidates and to guide the program change processCandidate performance is monitored between the time of admission to the teacher education program and admission to the internshipstudent teaching semester during Gate Four Candidates must maintain a cumulative 275 grade point average during this interim period as well as earn satisfactory ratings on the 29Disposition Assessment (7Candidate Manual pp 26-30) score satisfactorily on a 30Diversity Rubric and score at target on all unit assessments Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) and edTPA are used formatively during Gate Four Both proprietary assessments are aligned with InTASC which are the SOE ICOs (1Unit Alignment and 2CAEP Alignment) Data generated from both assessments are used to assist and support candidates who are having difficulty in coursework or in clinical experiences Gate Five is Admission to Internship Prior to beginning this capstone experience candidates must have maintained a 275 cumulative GPA Candidates must have completed all required coursework for their degree with a minimum grade of C earned satisfactory Disposition Assessment scores scored at target on all unit assessments successfully completed the Internship Admission Interview successfully completed the appropriate Praxis II Specialty Area and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT)


exams and successfully completed an Arkansas FBI Background and Child Maltreatment check Results provide information for decisions regarding candidates readiness to begin teaching with supervision as well as professional development needs Gate Six is the Internship Assessment Candidates are assessed summatively during Internship by the University Supervisor and mentor teacher using the FFT rubrics and the edTPA rubrics The Disposition Assessment is used by both mentor teachers and university supervisors to evaluate candidate dispositions during Internship In addition to successful completion of the internship other exit requirements include completion of the teacher licensure application and all Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) required trainings and satisfactory completion of all degree requirements reflected by official posting of the degree on the official transcript Results of the internship assessments provide information regarding areas of strength and the need for future professional development for the candidate as well as feedback to the SOE arts and sciences and P-12 partner schools to determine needed program changes Gate Seven is the post-graduate assessment It involves information generated after program completion Annually the SOE submits Praxis information for each program completer to Title II which is used by ADE for its annual 9EPP Reports Other information is derived from follow-up studies of graduates at the time of graduation as well as after one and three years of employment and an employer survey completed after one and three years of service (6Assessment Report pp 40-44) In the 70Accreditation Report 2010 UAFS SOE selected Standard 2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice as a target for Continuous Improvement Since that time tremendous progress has been made in that area The EPP initiated a site-based Professional Development School (PDS) in spring 2013 The Van Buren School District and the SOE entered into a partnership agreement for a PDS at two sites Central Elementary and Butterfield Middle School In 2016 the SOE added another PDS site in the Fort Smith School District ensuring all K-6 candidates will have a PDS experience during their educational preparation The SOE has made every effort to include its school partners in decisions concerning recruitment admission placements candidate performance and candidate retention in its programs through the TEC which is comprised of SOE faculty and public school partners The SOE held a Faculty Retreat in June 2015 School partners TEC members and alumni were invited to attend Those who attended reviewed external reports assessment reports curriculum assessments policies programs and intended candidate outcomes The attendees provided valuable feedback for the SOE Based on the feedback changes were made in many areas (25Faculty Retreat) Several assessments and rubrics were revised Policies and procedures were updated based on the feedback from the partners The open forum honest dialogue and formative feedback strengthened the partnerships and provided feedback that led to program improvement Based on feedback the Coordinator of Teacher Licensure and Field Placements hosted several focus groups with school partners to revise the SOE Lesson Plan format The new lesson plan was approved and implemented in fall 2015 (19Lesson Plan 71Lesson Plan Minutes) As noted in the 3Assessment Manual pp 7-12 other significant changes have been made in the past two years based on the recommendations of an external evaluator (20SWOT Analysis 25Faculty Retreat) Since FFT is a required ADE assessment for all teachers in the state and it has been crosswalked to the InTASC Standards the SOE voted to use the FFT assessment rubrics to assess the candidates performance against its goals and standards (ICOs) Prior to that time the SOE ICOs which are the InTASC Standards had been assessed using an outdated checklist matrix The SOE has been using the FFT rubrics to assess the candidates since fall 2014 but had not aligned its QAS to the rubrics Another change was the adoption of the edTPA Portfolio to replace the SOE portfolio UAFS SOE was the first institution in Arkansas to pilot the edTPA Portfolio However because the SOE faculty understood the economic challenges faced by many of their candidates they were concerned with the cost They recognized the value-added of the portfolio and during the 2015 Faculty Retreat the SOE and specialty area faculty voted to adopt edTPA They also agreed to become local evaluators The SOE Executive Director an edTPA Local Evaluation Trainer conducted face-to-face trainings in fall 2015 and inter-rater reliability activities in spring 2016 Faculty scored and selected the highest rated portfolios from different licensure programs to be externally evaluated (6Assessment Report pp 28-34) The SOE paid for the external evaluation of the portfolios and will continue to do so in an effort to establish and retain


local evaluation inter-rater reliability Although Arkansas does not provide impact on student learning data or teacher effectiveness data the SOE has requested feedback from graduates and employers (6Assessment Report pp 59-62) As noted in Standard 4 the SOE met with alumni to elicit information about the evidence they submit to demonstrate a positive impact on student learning and teacher effectiveness SOE used the information from the pilot group to collect evidence from recent graduates (58Pilot Group) SOE faculty created a pilot Case Study to track graduates beginning with spring 2015 graduates The SOE also updated its graduate and employer survey in spring 2016 to include questions concerning impact on student learning and teacher effectiveness (6Assessment Report pp 40-44) The ADE provides Educator Program Provider Reports annually including comparison data (9EPP Reports) Assessment data ADE reports and other data are reported to its stakeholders at various internal and external meetings including Teacher Credential and Standards Committee (TCSC) and Education Renewal Zone (ERZ) Advisory Group meetings STEM Education Advisory Committee Meetings and Superintendents Meetings Assessment reports EPP reports and Annual Reports which includes eight annual measures are also posted on the SOE website (httpeducationuafsedu) Data from the measures are collected used reported and disseminated as noted in 72CAEP 54 Table The SOE seeks input and feedback from multiple stakeholders Examples include public school administrators teachers and alumni who serve on interview panels admission committees TEC TCSC trainings faculty retreats and committees 43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships Likewise the SOE faculty are involved in public school activities committees and functions The SOE faculty and public school partners collaborate to identify areas of need or improvement as noted in the addition of the special education endorsement and the revision of the SOE Lesson Plan In 2016 40To Become A Teacher rated UAFS SOE as the second best EPP in Arkansas This was highlighted on the UAFS website and reported in the local paper The retention rate of SOE admitted candidates from 2012-2016 is approximately 75 (17At Risk Candidate Summary) Based on the evidence provided in this report it is apparent the QAS is operating in an effective and efficient manner thereby providing the SOE the data needed to collect analyze monitor and report its candidates proficiency on all CAEP Standards

III Cross-cutting themes

a Statement of integration of diversity

i Analysis of evidence that demonstrates diversity integration

UAFS School of Education provides multiple opportunities for candidates to interact with diverse populations As noted throughout the 12Standard 1 Tables diversity is integrated across all programs and assessed using multiple measures Diversity is embedded in both Danielson FFT and edTPA as demonstrated in the tables Diversity is a School of Education Disposition and each candidates disposition including diversity is tracked from the first education course through Internship Diversity is defined as Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity race socioeconomic status gender exceptionalities language religion sexual orientation and geographical area The dispositions including Diversity are aligned with the FFT and edTPA as noted in 1Unit Assessments Alignment chart and assessed throughout the program In depth data are reported in 6Assessment Report The university recognizes the need of all students to embrace diversity The university expresses this in the Academic Catalog as a Student Learning Vision Graduates who embrace change welcome diversity and are enthusiastically engaged in lifelong learning and who have the ability and desire to transfer those skills to the workplace and the community The university requires each program to address diversity (Global and Cultural Perspectives) in the coursework As noted in Standard 2 all candidates complete a field experience in a diverse setting In many cases they experience diversity in multiple settings Additionally to demonstrate how diversity is addressed in the coursework and field


experiences the SOE created tables for the Self-Study Report indicating those University Learning Outcomes (ULOs) The 16Required Courses Chart and the 18Field Experiences Tables provide overwhelming evidence diversity is addressed in coursework and clinical experiences

All candidates complete a Diversity Case Study and the assessment data reflect this is an area below expectations Also a qualitative research study conducted by an adjunct faculty member (22Lehman Study) indicates candidates may need additional preparation in this area Although all candidates complete field experiences in diverse schools and those experiences are linked to specific objectives in the coursework as noted in the 18Field Experiences Tables faculty recognize the need additional preparation in the area of diversity Therefore the faculty included another diversity course in the new K-6 program of study Additionally a unit of study on assistive technology has been added to the Educational Technology course In Standard Three the SOE provided evidence of its efforts to recruit support retain and graduate candidates who are diverse The SOE recognizes the importance of preparing teachers to not only teach diverse students but also serve as roles for diversity Several initiatives were outlined in the 43Recruitment Retention and Partnerships document The partnerships provide opportunities for the SOE candidates to interact with diversity in various settings to respect and apply multiple perspectives to recognize their own bias and to grow professionally Additionally the support systems enable the SOE to identify struggling candidates and to provide the resources they need to be successful The SOE implemented a 38Strategic Plan and a 39Recruitment and Retention Plan in 2016 Both documents address diversity as it relates to candidates and faculty

Standard Five outlines the QAS and how it operates As noted earlier FFT and edTPA have Diversity components that are aligned with InTASC the SOEs Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) Assessment data are reported in the 6Assessment Report Standard Five outlines the use of the Disposition Assessment data to identify at-risk candidates and provide the support they need to be successful

Poverty is a primary concern in the geographical area and faculty are cognizant of the importance of understanding the needs of first-generation college students from all cultural backgrounds

b Statement of integration of technology

i Analysis of evidence that demonstrates technology integration

UAFS School of Education provides multiple opportunities for candidates to use technology As noted in the 12Standard 1Tables technology is addressed throughout the program of study By using the 2CAEP Alignment crosswalk table the SOE documented the criteria that included an alignment with specific CAEP Standard One componentsFFTedTPA Data are found in 6Assessment Report All candidates complete a course in educational technology The course objectives are aligned with ISTE Standards Candidates explore various types of instructional technology research a technology tool and present it to the class A new course objective beginning fall 2016 is the inclusion of a unit on assistive technology The university requires each program to address technology in its coursework To demonstrate how technology is addressed in the coursework and field experiences the SOE created tables for the Self-Study Report indicating those University Learning Outcomes (ULOs) 16Required Courses Chart and 18Field Experiences Tables provide evidence of how technology is addressed in coursework and clinical experiences Also noted in Standard One Novice Teacher Surveys indicate SOE graduates are well-prepared in all areas and Employer Surveys indicate the graduates have a positive impact on student learning (6Assessment Report 57-58 and 40-44) FFT Components 1a 2a 3a b c e and the Lesson Planning data found in 12Standard 1Tables (pp 10-12) provide evidence SOE candidates are meeting target in the use of technology a required component for the lesson plans


(19Lesson Plan) Candidates videotape themselves teaching the lesson they created for edTPA Task 1 during Practicum I They hone those skills in Practicum II as they complete edTPA Tasks I and 2 During Internship they complete all three edTPA portfolio tasks which include other videotaped lessons One specific assessment that requires candidates to explain their use of technology in lesson planning is found on Table 6 in the 6Assessment Report The selected Lesson Plan component data are reported in 12Standard 1 Tables (p 12) Additionally the 6Assessment Report provides data from the Novice Teacher Survey SOE graduates rated themselves as well-prepared in the use instructional technology which is above the ADE mean Although the 6Assessment Report (p 35) indicates candidates demonstrate knowledge of effective teaching techniques and how to utilize technology (criteria 3 11) faculty plan to include a unit on assistive technology in the technology course

As noted in Standard Four the SOE has entered into a partnership with the Guy Fenter Educational Service Cooperative The partnership will enable interns to access professional development trainings (usually only offered to licensed teachers) at the cooperative including trainings in educational technology Additionally candidates have opportunities to use technology at the partner school sites (34Partnership Map) and at the 31PDS Partnership

Based on 16Required Courses Chart 18Field Experiences and the FFT and edTPA assignments and scores it is apparent the UAFS SOE candidates have multiple opportunities to explore and utilize technology in various settings Each opportunity enables them to hone their skills in the use of technology

A candidate work sample has been provided in the evidence folder for the reviewer The work sample is an edTPA Portfolio submission that demonstrates the SOEs expectations for all candidates including proficiency in the use of technology The video could not be loaded into AIMS therefore candidate work samples and videos will be available for the team visitors

IV Areas for Improvement (AFIs) from previous accreditation decisions if any

a Statement of progress in support of removing the AFI(s)

NA

b Overview of evidence in support of removing the AFI(s)No Evidence found

c Holistic summary statement (through comparison benchmarking trend interpretation etc) that provides a narrative explication for how the evidence collection taken as a whole demonstrates that area(s) for improvement are corrected NA

V Selected Improvement Plan

a Provide a description of the selected area for improvement and a rationale for selection

The School of Education (SOE) faculty Teacher Education Council members and teacher candidates currently enrolled in the program participated in the Faculty Retreat on August 10 2016 to review the CAEP report and unit assessment data They identified areas in need of improvement based on the data In CAEP Standard I they noted the candidates scored lowest in Danielsons Framework for Teaching (FFT) Domain 4c - Communication with Families The candidates who attended confirmed they felt under-prepared in this area Additionally they discussed a weakness in research opportunities for


candidates Faculty serve as advisors to candidates who complete research projects for the annual UAFS Research Symposium and this participation has been very beneficial for those candidates Some faculty members also advise honors students who complete in -depth research in specific content areas In response to candidates expressed need for more collaboration and support in learning academic research writing skills the SOE faculty planned and developed a new independent study course for educational research which was implemented in 2016 Although some programs in the SOE offer in-depth research projects they are not unit-wide Therefore the faculty reached a consensus to connect the two areas (Communication with Families and Research Writing) in the Selected Improvement Plan

b Identify goals and objectives aligned with the selected area for improvementSee attachment

c Describe the specific strategies and interventions to be implemented in the Selected Improvement Plan along with a timeline for implementationSee attachment

d Present a complete description of the assessment plan that details how each goal or objective is to be assessedSee attachment

e Describe the resources available to implement the plan This includes staffing and faculty cost (time salary or reassignment time) budgeting impacts such as travel or training costs expertise and other resourcesSee attachment

If preferred please upload entire SI plan as an attachment here



Selected Improvement Plan EvidenceNo Evidence found

State Standard(s) Evidence

Evidencedatatables (Upload each item of evidence under the appropriate components of the standard and answer any questions provided by the state)No Evidence found

Please click Next

This is the end of the Self-study Report You may log out at any time and come back to continue your report will be saved

When you are ready to submit the report click Next below This will take you to the submit button on the next page Once you click on Submit you will not be able to make changes to the report and


evidence


Does Not Meet Expectations (0)

Meets Expectations (1)

Exceeds Expectations (2)

(1) Knowing and understanding child and adolescent characteristics and needs

Candidatersquos work displays a limited knowledge base

Candidatersquos work reflects current research-based knowledge in most respectshellip

and shows a thorough grounding in theories and current research in all areas of child and adolescent development and learning

(2) Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on development and learning

Candidatersquos knowledge and understanding is weak or non-existent

Candidate describes the nature of influences on the child or adolescent cites relevant intervention programs and researchhellip

and demonstrates a thorough knowledge of possible interactions among these influences

(3) Knowing about and understanding family and community characteristics

Candidatersquos descriptions are weak or non-existent

Candidatersquos work shows that he or she knows significant characteristics of families and communities in which he or she is practicinghellip

in an in-depth way integrating family theory and research

(4) Supporting and empowering families and communities through respectful reciprocal relationships

Evidence of a relationship seems weak or non-existent

Candidate uses knowledge of familycommunity to build relationships uses varied communication strategies links family to at least one community resource

and links families with multiple community resources appropriate for specific purposes

(5) Involving families and communities in their childrenrsquos development and learning

Evidence of family involvement is weak and a limited repertoire of approaches to family and community involvement is noted

Candidate articulates theory and the concept that family and community involvement are importanthellip

while using varied approaches to their involvement modifying them as necessary

(6) Knowing understanding and using positive relationships and supportive interactions

Candidatersquos knowledge and skills that focus on developing appropriate relationships and interactions with diverse students in grades K-6 4-8 or 7-12 and their families are limited

Candidate shows basic competence and beginning skills in relationship-building with diverse students in grades K-6 4-8 or 7-12 and familieshellip

while going beyond to show sensitivity and skills in developing relationships through varied approaches depending on studentsrsquo ages and family and cultural practices

(7) Knowing understanding and using appropriate effective approaches and instructional strategies

Candidatersquos knowledge and application of effective instructional approaches and teaching strategies is weak or non-existent

Candidatersquos work demonstrates appropriate preparation of multiple learning approaches teaching strategies and experienceshellip

with a high degree of competence and with in-depth knowledge of the underlying theories and research

(8) Engaging in continuous collaborative learning and research to inform practice

Candidatersquos work evidences limited involvement and collaborative learning with minimum effects on candidatersquos practice and on students

Candidatersquos work shows evidence of orientation toward inquiry research self-motivation collaborative learning and a noted effect on practice and on studentshellip

with extensive involvement and skill in collaborative learning and notable positive effects on practice and on students

(9) Integrating knowledgeable reflective and critical perspectives on elementary middle and secondary education

Candidatersquos reflection on practice shows lack of insight and a limited level of critical thinking Effects on candidatersquos practice and on students are not evident

Candidatersquos work shows analysis and reflection on practice and demonstrated critical thinking skills There is a positive effect on candidatersquos professional perspective practice and on studentshellip

with notable insight and in-depth critical thinking

Objectives

Baseline ndash 2016-2017

Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1

1 Improve candidatesrsquo knowledge based on research relevant to the impact of family involvement on K-12 studentsrsquo academic achievement

Finalize assignments rubrics train all faculty

Research assignment will be added to educational psychology course in spring 2017

ParentFamily survey assignment will be added to first clinical experience

Development and presentation of the impact of family involvement on K-12 student achievement research

Family survey assignment will be completed in the second clinical experience with a different school settingdemographic

DataScoresRatings will be collected on assignments

Summative internship data should reflect that candidates are meeting andor exceeding the target level in Danielson FFT 4c a proprietary instrument

Objective 2

2 Improve candidatesrsquo skills in communicating with families in order to meet K-12 studentsrsquo needs

Research assignment will be added to educational psychology (EDUC 3013) course in spring 2017 with an emphasis on family involvementrsquos impact on K-12 student learning and on how to communicate with parents families and other diverse school stakeholders

Development and implementation of the survey based on research relevant to the impact of family involvement on K-12 student achievement ParentFamily survey assignment will be completed during the first clinical experience

Surveys will be revised in second clinical course based on the data collected analyzed and reflected upon during the first clinical experience Revised survey will be completed appropriate to the second clinical experience placement in a different school settingdemographic

DataScoresRatings on assignments for cohorts

Data should reflect that candidates are meeting andor exceeding the target level in Danielson FFT 4c a proprietary instrument

Objective 3

3 Improve candidatesrsquo cultural awareness to better prepare them for working with families of diverse cultures by increasing opportunities for interactions

Research assignment will be added to educational psychology (EDUC 3013) course in spring 2017 with an emphasis on family involvementrsquos impact on K-12 student learning and on how to communicate with parents and other diverse school stakeholders

ParentFamily survey assignment will be added to first clinical experiences Teacher candidates will communicate with parentsguardians during parent teacher conferences planned activities or through online school district programs to complete the research-based survey Data collected will be analyzed shared with stakeholders and reflected upon by teacher candidates

ParentFamily survey assignment will be revised during the second clinical experiences Teacher candidates will communicate with parentsguardians during parent teacher conferences planned activities or through online school district programs to complete the revised research-based survey Data collected will be analyzed shared with stakeholders and reflected upon by teacher candidates


CAEP Self-Study Report for SI Pathway

I EPP Overview

a Context and Unique Characteristics

The University of Arkansas - Fort Smith (UAFS) is located in the heart of the Arkansas River Valley near the ArkansasOklahoma border Its 170 acre campus is in Fort Smith the second largest city in Arkansas It has 65 campus buildings and facilities UAFS has a unique history It was founded in 1928 as Fort Smith Junior College an extension of the public school system in Fort Smith In 1950 the school was incorporated as a private nonprofit institution with its own governing boards In 1966 the institution became Westark Junior College in 1972 it changed to Westark Community College and then to Westark College in 1998 In 2000 Westark College merged with the University of Arkansas System as a four-year institution It became official on January 1 2002 and the College of Education was established that year In 2014 UAFS revised its organizational structure and changed the College of Education to the School of Education (SOE) which is housed in the College of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Another unique feature of UAFS is the Western Arkansas Technical Center (WATC) an area secondary center that offers high school juniors and seniors in a six county area of western Arkansas an opportunity to earn up to 38 college credit hours that apply toward a technical certificate associate or bachelors degree while still in high school The School of Education offers an associate degree in Early Childhood Education in partnership with WATC UAFS is the sixth largest university in Arkansas and one of 11 campuses in the University of Arkansas System UAFS serves more than 20000 people annually in credit and non-credit programs In fall 2015 the student population was 6707 and the student-to-faculty ratio was 181 UAFS offers 33 bachelors degrees 14 associate degrees 28 certificates and 1 masters degree More than 50 of the UAFS students receive financial assistance from scholarships grants loans and student employment

b Description of Organizational Structure

The University of Arkansas - Fort Smith includes five colleges of postsecondary education College of Applied Science and Technology College of Business College of Health Sciences (includes the Carolyn McKelvey Moore School of Nursing) College of Communication Languages Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Science Technology Engineering amp Mathematics (includes the School of Education) Since 2014 the UAFS School of Education has been part of the College of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Therefore the Dean of STEM serves as the Dean of the School of Education The governance structure of the UAFS School of Education includes the following Dean - College of STEMSchool of Education Executive Director - School of Education Education Coordinator Council (ECC) Teacher Credential and Standards Committee (TCSC) Teacher Education Council (TEC) and a Superintendents Advisory Group The Executive Director of the School of Education is the Unit Head of Teacher Education at UAFS The Dean and Executive Director serve as ad hoc members of all committees The Dean and Executive Director are responsible for all final products from the School of Education The Dean reports directly to the ProvostChief Academic Officer The Executive Director of the School of Education reports to the Dean of STEM The Teacher Education Council serves as an advisory body on matters of policy and curriculum for teacher education The School of Education is most effective as it works in partnership with area school districts to meet local needs while focusing on national and state standards

c Vision Mission and Goals

The vision of UAFS is to be a premier regional university connecting education with careers Its


1


Peer Selection














2

























3

















(2nd major) PELL









4










5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric








(Confidential)








Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






1


Peer Selection














2

























3

















(2nd major) PELL









4










5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity





(Confidential)











area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






2

























3

















(2nd major) PELL









4










5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas


(Confidential)



Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






3

















(2nd major) PELL









4










5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class



(Confidential)








NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






4










5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD














(Confidential)


Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






5









Candidate Feedback


6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska













(Confidential)








Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






6


Male 90

Female 146


Hispanic 13

Nat Amer 10

Asian 4

Black 1

Islander 1

White 200

Multi-Racial 7



pedagogy 434 417


rapport 425 424


7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in

(Confidential)







Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






7


techniques 414 396


community 440 411


433 416



Sp16






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license









(Confidential)



non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






8










9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf




(Confidential)





review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






9


435 417


rapport 442 424


techniques 398 396


community 423 411


425 416


10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4






(Confidential)

1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3






10



EC Mean (n=60)

Elem Mean (n=23)

Mid Lvl

Mean (n=23)

Art Mean (n=6)

Music Mean (n=15)

PE Mean (n=21)

ENG Mean (n=8)

FACS Mean (n=4)

SCI Mean (n=8)

MATH Mean (n=6)

SS Mean (n=6)

MAT ML

Mean (n=53)



410 443 396 430 433 407 386 388 425 413 417 350 408 389


403 423 365 435 417 400 376 413 425 425 417 450 406 375


411 448 378 404 433 387 400 400 400 438 417 400 413 392


399 443 352 404 400 347 414 375 450 363 400 350 402 383


Parity Tablepdf

8






























Schoolaspx









Scoring Rubric
















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content







(Confidential)


19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









































Objectives


Year 1 - 2017-2018

Year 2-6

Year 7Goal

Objective 1









Objective 2







Objective 3



















Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3




(Confidential)


















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence














Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3










(Confidential)












above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









Table 1 - Capacity
















area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3















(Confidential)







above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence












area


cycle



licensure level

Method of Delivery






PreK-Grade 4




on campus Arkansas



Elementary K-6






Middle Childhood

82 87


on campus Arkansas





Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3





















(Confidential)

above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence




Recognition















on campus Arkansas









on campus Arkansas









Student Body Coed

Carnegie Class











NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level








(Confidential)

















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









NameHighest degree

earned


degree







these roles




















Dr Barbara Hunt EdD
















Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level
















(Confidential)









1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence



Faculty


Arkansas



Faculty


Oklahoma license




Nebraska





















Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment

(Confidential)






5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









Mr Darren McKinney




















Teacher in








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20

(Confidential)

32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence








Arkansas license












non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan






(Confidential)







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence




non-licensure


Dr Donna Scoggins














EPP data




Upload Parity Table

Parity Tablepdf









review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan









(Confidential)




1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence






review (Y or N)



required)

NotesComments







CAEP Standard 1

CAEP Standard 2

CAEP Standard 3

CAEP Standard 4







1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports







(Confidential)








15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence


1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 8Licensure Exams


9 9EPP Reports












15 15GPA Content









19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29

(Confidential)

46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence



19 19Lesson Plan


20 20SWOT Analysis


21 21Key Findings


22 22Lehman Study





Lesson Plans

Planning Commentary



Assessments

Evaluation Criteria

Student Sample 1

Student Sample 2

Student Sample 3






















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report





(Confidential)























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence



















above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report











(Confidential)

















1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence













above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report
















(Confidential)












1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence








above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report























(Confidential)





1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence


above target level

























1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study



(Confidential)


10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence


















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval











(Confidential)










1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence










1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval
















(Confidential)





1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence







5 7Candidate Manual


6 8Licensure Exams


7 9EPP Reports








11 23Minutes






14 26MOU












20


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval



















(Confidential)


1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence


32Licensure Regs








24 36At Risk Table


25 37Plan of Action


26 38Strategic Plan













1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report

(Confidential)


18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence








1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table




(Confidential)

























NA


















Please click Next




evidence





1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes




6 7Candidate Manual


7 8Licensure Exams


8 9EPP Reports















15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table






(Confidential)























NA


















Please click Next




evidence









15 20SWOT Analysis






18 32Licensure Regs






21 38Strategic Plan








25 42Minutes








29


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table








(Confidential)





















NA


















Please click Next




evidence


46Diversity Rubric
















37 54PEDS Reports


38 55QAS Report




























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table














(Confidential)















NA


















Please click Next




evidence
























1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table






















(Confidential)







NA


















Please click Next




evidence


















1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA






(Confidential)












Please click Next




evidence













1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next



(Confidential)

evidence






1 1Unit Alignment




3 7Candidate Manual


4 9EPP Reports








8 56IRB Case Study





10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence

(Confidential)


10 58Pilot Group








14 62IRB Approval





















1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence











1 1Unit Alignment


2 2CAEP Alignment




4 4Minutes


5 5ADE Competencies




7 7Candidate Manual


8 9EPP Reports




10 19Lesson Plan


11 20SWOT Analysis












17 55QAS Report



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence



18 58Pilot Group






21 68Minutes








25 72CAEP 54 Table





























NA


















Please click Next




evidence


























NA


















Please click Next




evidence













Please click Next




evidence


evidence


Self-Study Report - UAFS

Documents

Transcript of Self-Study Report - UAFS

	Does Not Meet Expectations (0)	Meets Expectations (1)	Exceeds Expectations (2)

(1) Knowing and understanding child and adolescent characteristics and needs	Candidatersquos work displays a limited knowledge base	Candidatersquos work reflects current research-based knowledge in most respectshellip	and shows a thorough grounding in theories and current research in all areas of child and adolescent development and learning

(2) Knowing and understanding the multiple influences on development and learning	Candidatersquos knowledge and understanding is weak or non-existent	Candidate describes the nature of influences on the child or adolescent cites relevant intervention programs and researchhellip	and demonstrates a thorough knowledge of possible interactions among these influences

(3) Knowing about and understanding family and community characteristics	Candidatersquos descriptions are weak or non-existent	Candidatersquos work shows that he or she knows significant characteristics of families and communities in which he or she is practicinghellip	in an in-depth way integrating family theory and research

(4) Supporting and empowering families and communities through respectful reciprocal relationships	Evidence of a relationship seems weak or non-existent	Candidate uses knowledge of familycommunity to build relationships uses varied communication strategies links family to at least one community resource	and links families with multiple community resources appropriate for specific purposes

(5) Involving families and communities in their childrenrsquos development and learning	Evidence of family involvement is weak and a limited repertoire of approaches to family and community involvement is noted	Candidate articulates theory and the concept that family and community involvement are importanthellip	while using varied approaches to their involvement modifying them as necessary

(6) Knowing understanding and using positive relationships and supportive interactions	Candidatersquos knowledge and skills that focus on developing appropriate relationships and interactions with diverse students in grades K-6 4-8 or 7-12 and their families are limited	Candidate shows basic competence and beginning skills in relationship-building with diverse students in grades K-6 4-8 or 7-12 and familieshellip	while going beyond to show sensitivity and skills in developing relationships through varied approaches depending on studentsrsquo ages and family and cultural practices

(7) Knowing understanding and using appropriate effective approaches and instructional strategies	Candidatersquos knowledge and application of effective instructional approaches and teaching strategies is weak or non-existent	Candidatersquos work demonstrates appropriate preparation of multiple learning approaches teaching strategies and experienceshellip	with a high degree of competence and with in-depth knowledge of the underlying theories and research

(8) Engaging in continuous collaborative learning and research to inform practice	Candidatersquos work evidences limited involvement and collaborative learning with minimum effects on candidatersquos practice and on students	Candidatersquos work shows evidence of orientation toward inquiry research self-motivation collaborative learning and a noted effect on practice and on studentshellip	with extensive involvement and skill in collaborative learning and notable positive effects on practice and on students

(9) Integrating knowledgeable reflective and critical perspectives on elementary middle and secondary education	Candidatersquos reflection on practice shows lack of insight and a limited level of critical thinking Effects on candidatersquos practice and on students are not evident	Candidatersquos work shows analysis and reflection on practice and demonstrated critical thinking skills There is a positive effect on candidatersquos professional perspective practice and on studentshellip	with notable insight and in-depth critical thinking

Objectives	Baseline ndash 2016-2017	Year 1 - 2017-2018	Year 2-6	Year 7Goal

Objective 1 1 Improve candidatesrsquo knowledge based on research relevant to the impact of family involvement on K-12 studentsrsquo academic achievement	Finalize assignments rubrics train all faculty Research assignment will be added to educational psychology course in spring 2017	ParentFamily survey assignment will be added to first clinical experience	Development and presentation of the impact of family involvement on K-12 student achievement research Family survey assignment will be completed in the second clinical experience with a different school settingdemographic DataScoresRatings will be collected on assignments	Summative internship data should reflect that candidates are meeting andor exceeding the target level in Danielson FFT 4c a proprietary instrument

Objective 2 2 Improve candidatesrsquo skills in communicating with families in order to meet K-12 studentsrsquo needs	Research assignment will be added to educational psychology (EDUC 3013) course in spring 2017 with an emphasis on family involvementrsquos impact on K-12 student learning and on how to communicate with parents families and other diverse school stakeholders	Development and implementation of the survey based on research relevant to the impact of family involvement on K-12 student achievement ParentFamily survey assignment will be completed during the first clinical experience	Surveys will be revised in second clinical course based on the data collected analyzed and reflected upon during the first clinical experience Revised survey will be completed appropriate to the second clinical experience placement in a different school settingdemographic DataScoresRatings on assignments for cohorts	Data should reflect that candidates are meeting andor exceeding the target level in Danielson FFT 4c a proprietary instrument

Objective 3 3 Improve candidatesrsquo cultural awareness to better prepare them for working with families of diverse cultures by increasing opportunities for interactions	Research assignment will be added to educational psychology (EDUC 3013) course in spring 2017 with an emphasis on family involvementrsquos impact on K-12 student learning and on how to communicate with parents and other diverse school stakeholders	ParentFamily survey assignment will be added to first clinical experiences Teacher candidates will communicate with parentsguardians during parent teacher conferences planned activities or through online school district programs to complete the research-based survey Data collected will be analyzed shared with stakeholders and reflected upon by teacher candidates	ParentFamily survey assignment will be revised during the second clinical experiences Teacher candidates will communicate with parentsguardians during parent teacher conferences planned activities or through online school district programs to complete the revised research-based survey Data collected will be analyzed shared with stakeholders and reflected upon by teacher candidates	Data should reflect that candidates are meeting andor exceeding the target level in Danielson FFT 4c a proprietary instrument