institutional report: transformation initiative option ... · pdf fileinstitutional report:...

NCATE/ TI Institutional Report Submitted August 2015 Page 0

INSTITUTIONAL REPORT:

TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE OPTION

University Of Memphis

2015

Dr. Ernest A. Rakow, Interim Dean

Dr. Mary Ransdell, NCATE Coordinator

NCATE/ TI Institutional Report Submitted August 2015 1

I. Overview and Conceptual Framework

I.1 What are the institution’s historical context, mission and unique characteristics

(e.g., HBCU or religious)? [2000 characters]

The University of Memphis was established under the auspices of the General Education Bill, enacted by the Tennessee Legislature in 1909 and has a rich history featuring teacher preparation; beginning as West Tennessee Normal School in 1912. As the flagship of the Tennessee Board of Regents System, we are a comprehensive doctoral-extensive university awarding more than 3000 degrees annually. Our Vision and Mission defines the U of M as a metropolitan research university, offering comprehensive, innovative and high quality academic programs to urban, suburban, and rural populations through a variety of delivery vehicles; and for capitalizing on its urban setting to address the needs of our global society through artistic expression, and engaged interdisciplinary scholarship. Unique characteristics include a Cradle to Career Collaboration for the virtual West TN STEM Hub serving 20 counties and offering real-life competitions for student-teams. Project Memphis began in the 1970s and serves 70-140 families/ year, helping parents interact positively with their children with special needs. Restructuring for Inclusive Education (RISE) began in 1995 and serves a 5-county area by focusing on positive interventions to improve behavior and academics. Campus School, a K-6 lab school operated by the local school system, is located on the U of M Campus, and the Barbara K. Lipman Early Childhood School and Research Institute serves the needs of the urban community. The Center for Urban School Leadership has 1-year intensive, highly selective program producing exceptional school leaders. Our Department of Leadership is known throughout West Tennessee as the place to develop great school leaders. The University of Memphis Lambuth Campus (formally Lambuth College) was purchased from the city of Jackson, TN after the closure of the Lambuth College. This small, but full-service campus allows us to impact the Jackson-Madison County area. Enrollment has exceeded expectations. I.2 What is the professional education EPP at your institution and what is its

relationship to other units at the institution that are involved in the preparation of

professional educators? [4000 characters]

EPP The professional EPP is the College of Education (COE). The college includes undergraduate and graduate degree programs leading to licensure as well as certificates and endorsements for advanced teacher preparation. The COE offers or coordinates nine undergraduate teacher education programs; four of these are B.S.Ed. teacher preparation programs offered in the unit: Physical Education Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, Teaching All Learners (dual Elementary and Modified Special Education), and Youth Services (non-licensure). The Middle Grades Program is undergoing complete revision. The COE also coordinates four baccalaureate teacher preparation programs in


Music Education (vocal and instrumental) and Art Education housed in the College of Communication; and Fine Arts, and Dance Education housed in the University College. Paperwork for a new B.A. degree in Secondary Math Education has been submitted to the state; approval is anticipated. Overall, the COE offers 41 graduate programs including the Master of Arts in Teaching (5), Master of Education (1), Master of Science (18), Education Specialist (1), Doctor of Education (13), and Doctor of Philosophy (3). Of these, 14 are initial or advanced programs that prepare P-12 school professionals: five M.A.T. degrees in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education (six licensure programs), Special Education, and Dual Middle Grades Education with Modified Special Education; one M.Ed. degree in Childhood Literacy Reading (Tennessee Board of Regents University consortium program); and eight M.S. degrees in School Counseling, Physical Education Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, Instruction and Curriculum, Instructional Design and Technology, Reading, Special Education, and School Administration and Supervision. Seven Graduate Certificates (Autism, Urban Education, Teaching and Leadership, Disabilities Studies, Instructional Computer Applications, Literacy Leadership and Coaching, and Qualitative Studies in Educational Research) and a Graduate Endorsement in Library and Information Specialist provide advanced studies that directly impact children. In addition, the COE coordinates with initial POBA programs in Business Education housed in the College of Business and Economics and Family and Consumer Sciences Education housed in the University College. Further, the COE coordinates advanced M.A. programs in School Psychology housed in the College of Arts and Sciences and the M.A. program in Speech-Language Pathology housed in the School of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. In sum, the COE houses or coordinates nine B.S. initial teacher preparation degree programs and 18 POBA initial and advanced degree programs for the preparation of P-12 teachers and other school professionals. These programs are offered on and off campus, as fully face-to-face, hybrid, or fully-online and reflect nearly 50 different P-12 school professional licensure programs. A variety of other degree programs and graduate certificates with no direct impact on P-12 student learning are offered through the COE but not discussed here. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS Undergraduate students take most of their lower division general education courses in the Colleges of Communications & Fine Arts, and Arts & Sciences. COE faculty members cooperate with colleagues, particularly in the College of Arts & Sciences to tailor content and course sections to the needs of the P-12 classroom teachers, PRAXIS exams, and Common Core State Standards. These collaborations proved helpful to our candidates in providing a strong base upon which to build methods coursework during their upper division courses. Collaborations with other colleges exist for graduate levels with the STEM Hub providing a prime example of this. However, most graduate degrees and certificates require courses within the COE.


I.3 What are the significant changes, if any, made to the conceptual framework since the

last NCATE review? [4000 characters]

Our conceptual framework has not changed substantially since the last review. Our framework is represented by three philosophical commitments guiding our efforts for preparing educators to serve in P-12 schools. All COE programs are built on the foundation of a commitment to diverse

communities. We are committed to preparing effective professionals who understand and value diversity, and who act proactively in all relationships. All programs are designed using principles of effective practice. We are committed to preparing candidates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to begin practice as competent professionals who meet or exceed the requirements for successful careers. In all programs and practices, we are committed to the notion of leaders as problem solvers who embrace change. We intend to prepare educators to take leadership roles in their chosen profession. Our faculty and candidate leaders are disposed to positive change through active engagement with their various professional communities. Our pursuit of these three commitments is guided by six action principles:

• Social Justice: A climate of openness and egalitarianism is embedded in all our actions.

• Integrity: Act in good conscience, to take responsibility for their behavior, and to do the right thing while respecting others.

• Excellence: Maximize resources and mobilize the collective efforts of those working together toward the attainment of excellence in all endeavors.

• Accountability: The COE holds itself accountable for meeting the educational goals of the community it serves.

• Respect: We are a community of scholars who embody professionalism and engage in respectful discourse.

• Continuous Learning: Offer challenging programs that span undergraduate through doctoral degrees. Faculty members are supported in modeling ongoing professional development and self-study.

In the same way that actions in support of the three commitments are guided by principles of action, the COE developed norms, or principles of interaction, to guide behaviors and professional interactions among faculty and candidates.

• I take 100% responsibility.

• I seek equity of voice. All voices are heard.

• I am willing to talk about sensitive issues. I encourage dialogue about sensitive issues.

• I listen for understanding. I go directly to the source for information and problem resolution.

• I appreciate the strengths and contributions of others. I need, I want, and I value contributions of others.

• I bring positive energy and encouragement to the team. I contribute positive synergy to the team.

• I commit to the mission of the College. I support and implement the mission.

The TI is a natural extension of the Mission and Vision statements and the six pillars of our the Conceptual Framework by our communication and partnerships with exemplary local schools


and teachers; faculty members focused on self-study and data-driven improvements; COE faculty collaboration with College of Arts and Sciences faculty and a strong commitment to providing preservice teachers with real-world experiences through innovative and interactive teaching techniques and technological media. A renewed sense of social justice stemming from the Conceptual Framework and seven COE Norms propelled a core of faculty members to create the Diversity Committee to address issues related to diversity across all course and to broaden the definition of diversity to include not only issues of race and ethnicity, but also physical and academic ability, access, and economics. The TI enhances the Mission and Vision statements; the Conceptual Framework; and the COE Norms by focusing on P-12 student learning via planning, teaching, assessing, and reflecting along with professional collaborations, developing and maintaining partnerships, and celebrating diversity. The TI provides measurable data to validate statements made above and to offer guidance for future program developments. See Exhibits I.4.a.1-5. I.4 Exhibits

I.4.a Conceptual Framework

I.4.a.1

I.4.a.2

I.4.a.3

I.4.a.4

I.4.a.5

Conceptual Framework Document Conceptual Framework Brief Conceptual Framework Graphic COE Diversity Standards Alignment of EPP, National and Professional Standards

TI. Summary of the Transformation Initiative

TI.1 Provide a brief overview of the TI. (4000 characters)

The TI at the U of M highlights the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) mandated Ready2Teach (R2T) Initiative. R2T at the U of M focuses on preparing BSED teacher candidates who are competent to teach and safe to practice. The TI was chosen by TBR and the proposal developed by the its staff in concert with representatives from the Colleges of Education from six Tennessee institutions: Austin Peay State University, Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee State University, Tennessee Technological University, East Tennessee State University, and the University of Memphis. The primary goals of the R2T Initiative are to:

• Prepare teacher candidates to positively impact student performance upon entering the workforce

• Collaborate with local schools to improve outcomes for students, schools, and the community

The two-semester BSED clinical residency begins with the teacher in-service days at local schools in late July and prepares teacher education graduates to succeed in challenging urban, suburban, and rural public schools. Originally undergraduate candidates in three programs (Early


Childhood, Teaching all Learners, and Middle School) spent two full days during their first semester of their senior year (Residency I) in local school classrooms in meaningful teacher-related tasks (e.g., tutoring, teaching, observing). In each model, Fridays are reserved for Practicum Seminars or make-up clinical days. Local school administrators AND the U of M Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services created the schedule. Based on feedback from candidates and school personnel candidates now spend 7 weeks on the U of M campus and 8 full weeks in the public school classroom. Local school administrators choose expert mentor teachers (Preservice Instructive Mentors or PIMs), who provide teacher candidates with effective teaching models. A Master Clinician or a university faculty member spends time in the candidates’ classrooms monitoring, mentoring, conferencing, or co-teaching as necessary. Master Clinicians are former K-12-based personnel possessing a long history of exemplary teaching. Master Clinicians and faculty collaborate on the Friday Seminars held for Residency I candidates. PIMs and Master Clinicians have specific qualifications that are explained later. Candidates return to the same classroom with mentor teacher in early January of the second semester of their senior year (Residency II). During this semester candidates perform as a co-teacher, under their PIM’s guidance. During this professional semester, candidates must be in control, with the PIM acting as an aide and present in the classroom, for at least eight full weeks. The administrators understand our requirement that candidates have diverse teaching experiences and work to fulfill this by their recommendation of PIMs whose classrooms contain a variety of learners. In summary, R2T provides a year-long residency whereby undergraduate candidates spend approximately 800 documented hours in a local classroom assisting, teaching, tutoring, assessing children’s learning, reflecting on their performances and studying the work of their mentor teachers. The edTPA provides the assessment instrument for the TI, and the capstone assessment for our teacher education programs. This nationally scored portfolio of candidate tasks, commentary, and reflection involves planning, instructing and assessing children. It is externally and blindly-scored. There are 30+ versions of the edTPA each targeting a specific content/grade band (e.g. elementary literacy, middle grades science). Rubrics are similarly focused across the editions, thus Rubric #5 in one content area resembles Rubric #5 in another content area; the primary difference being the wording relative to specific protocols. Candidates receive a separate score on each of the 15 rubrics. We are unable to fully implement R2T at the graduate level, but have implemented the completion of the edTPA. See text below for an explanation. TI.2 What is the status/progress of TI implementation? (8000 characters)

Year 1 (2010/2011)

The U of M had a year-long clinical model whereby Elementary Education/Special Education students were placed in one of several local schools for 1-2 days per week during their first (methods) semester senior year. The students returned to that same school and classroom teacher


for one of their two student teaching assignments. Thus, it was relatively easy to transition to the R2T Model. Strong partnerships existed with local districts then, and now. Teaching all Learners (Elementary K-6 and Modified SPED K-12 dual licensure) implemented R2T as a pilot in Fall 2010 with 52 candidates. The teacher candidates received two student teaching placements, but in the same school. One placement was the same as their “methods” semester classroom and the second placement was in a classroom from the other grade-band (K-2 or 3-5). This was somewhat problematic because some students who took their “methods” semester in Spring worked with different students in Fall and with a different teacher in some cases. Planning for a one-year rotation was undertaken. The TPA (nee edTPA) was used as the capstone project and was initially scored in-house by faculty after having received training and being calibrated by trainers at Stanford University. Year 2 (2011/2012)

In year 2, Middle Grades Program faculty redesigned courses and assessments in order to implement R2T in Fall 2012. The Early Childhood Program began this process, but faculty member attrition stalled their process. Faculty associated with Physical Education, Art, Music, and Dance sought guidance as they worked with us to plan the redesign of their programs as they approached implementation of their programs in Fall 2013. All programs worked to phase in a Fall-Spring rotation of Residency 1 (formerly methods semester) and Residency II (student teaching) so that all teacher candidates remained in the same classroom with the same children and same Preservice Instructive Mentor (cooperating teacher) during the bulk of the academic year. The Teaching all Learners Program expanded the implementation of R2T to include all candidates newly admitted to the TEP. 80 candidates participated. In Fall, the edTPA was again scored in-house by faculty after having received training and being calibrated by Stanford University. Pearson took over scoring in Spring 2012.

Year 3 (2012/2013)

By year 3, the Teaching all Learners Program fully implemented R2T with all candidates. The Middle Grades Program implemented R2T in Fall 2012. 114 candidates participated in R2T. Faculty associated with Physical Education, Art, Music, and Dance continued their work to redesign their programs in preparation for Fall 2013 implementation. The TBR allowed its institutions to begin charging a differential fee of $25 per credit hour for all professional education courses. These funds provide stipends and training for local school personnel who mentor our teacher candidates; to pay the $300/candidate edTPA scoring fee charged by Pearson and for additional expenses noted later (Exhibit 6.4.e.1-2). Year 4 (2013/2014)

The Early Childhood, Art, Music, Dance and Physical Education Programs began implementing R2T in Fall 2013. Along with Teaching all Learners and Middle Grades, this accounted for 140 candidates.


Year 5 (2014/2015)

All BSED programs were fully participating in R2T. All Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Program were slated to begin R2T implementation in Fall 2014, but were not able to accomplish this for reasons outlined below. The MAT program prepares graduate candidates for initial licensure in five areas (Elementary Education, Early Childhood Education, Middle Grades, Special Education and Secondary Education [science, social studies, math, English/language arts]). There are several factors that complicated this plan. First, the TBR mandates a 30-hour Masters Program; secondly, because most of our graduate students work days, nearly all graduate coursework is offered completely online. A third complication is that since our MAT can be taken completely online, we recruit students from other U.S. states and foreign countries for our MAT programs; thus field work placements cannot be controlled, monitored, or assessed as closely as we do with the undergraduate programs. Finally, local districts have a history of hiring non-licensed teachers on Transitional Licenses for high-need areas. These teachers concurrently enroll in our MAT programs but may opt out of their clinical or student teaching semester if they meet specific criteria. They must verify through their administrators that they have taught for one year on a Transitional License or three years at an approved Private School and had successful evaluations. The result is that a majority of our MAT students complete their degree program without a 15-week clinical placement in a host teacher’s classroom. These four situations present a challenge for us as we seek to find a way to incorporate R2T, as it was envisioned into the MAT graduate program. The process to begin to incorporate R2T into the MAT program began several years ago and continues to the present time. MAT candidates complete the edTPA. Assessment

The edTPA is the capstone assessment event during the Residency II semester. Several comments need to be mentioned here relative to the edTPA scores: (a) Our initial pilot was in Fall 2010; (b) initially, trained faculty members scored students’ work; (c) Stanford University changed the rubrics and written prompts over the semesters; (d) Pearson took over scoring in Spring 2012; and (e) in the early years, all U of M students completed the Elementary Literacy edTPA, but choices are available now (Exhibit TI.4.a.1). Our initial foray into what is now the edTPA in Fall 2010 was met with fear by students since we used the Teacher Work Sample before moving to the edTPA. We began the edTPA with only two small cohorts (n=19 students) to allow us to begin to understand the process. Candidates were unfamiliar with some of the terminology and confused by some of the prompts. Initially, several faculty members traveled to CA to receive training and then to bring the training back to us so faculty could score edTPA documents in-house. Full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and school personnel were trained to score documents. Scorers were then calibrated with master documents from CA scorers. No one scored a document completed by a student with whom he/she had worked or taught. Pearson took on this scoring task in Spring 2012 with electronic submission via a portal. Trained external scorers assessed students and Pearson returned scores to institutions.


The edTPA prompts, number and foci of tasks, and number of scoring rubrics changed every semester through the early process. Faculty members back-mapped similar activities into early coursework and assessments. Initial versions had eleven 4-point rubrics and later edTPA editions have fifteen 5-point rubrics. Initially there were three tasks, then four, and finally three, again. The foci were always similar (planning, teaching, assessing and reflecting on P-12 student learning). Initially, all students were required to complete the Elementary Literacy edTPA. In Fall 2013, middle school candidates (ITGS) were allowed to chose the content area edTPA that most matched their placement. In Spring 2014, students chose an edTPA protocol that most nearly matched their anticipated licensure. We found that special education and early childhood pre-residency coursework did not adequately prepare the candidates for the respective edTPA tasks, thus these program faculty members will revamp their earlier coursework before students chose these protocols. Scores

Overall, our candidates’ mean scores consistently increased. They also matched or exceeded the state and national means when those data were available. The edTPA Summary 2011-2015 document displays means (Exhibit TI.4.a.1). See the 2014 report (Exhibit TI.4.a.2) for a recap of R2T. TI.3 What are the significant changes, if any, in the TI implementation since the TI

proposal was approved? (4000 characters)

The TBR declared that the IT would be implemented at the above named institutions. Adjustments to the research questions were made based on the feasibility of collecting particular data. For instance, Case Studies are implemented in a variety of ways and in various courses with limited regularity; therefore, any resultant data would be invalid. The six institutions have made changes to the TBR approved guidelines. These include:

1. Removal of the requirement that professional education components be offered primarily in organized sequential modules. All courses continue in traditional credit-hour format.

2. Require that all mentor teachers be rated as effective teachers by the approved state teacher evaluation system. Teacher must earn a 4 or 5 (5 is highest) in either evaluation system.

3. Residency has been redefined requiring a significant increase in the amount of time spent in the P-12 setting during the Residency year, instead of two full-time semesters. Currently, U of M undergraduate candidates spend approximately 800 hours in the clinical setting during the two residency semesters. Residency I requires 300 hours while Residency II requires 500 hours).

4. The focus on Problem-Based Learning has shifted to a broader focus on Experiential or reality based student learning which includes problem-based learning, project-based


learning, simulations, and case studies. We emphasize hands-on learning via videos, field assignments, cooperative learning, or other project-based instruction.

As part of the TI, the TBR institutions agreed to pilot the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) as a culminating competency indicator. As a result of that pilot, the institutions have adopted the edTPA as the culminating assessment for teacher candidates in disciplines that have an edTPA. Another significant change in the implementation of the TI has been the restructuring of the research component of the TI. This was an area cited for improvement in the initial NCATE review of the TBR proposal in 2010. Consequently, the research plan was revised by a statewide Research Committee with TBR staff. This reconsideration of the original research questions resulted in the conclusion that the original research questions would not provide the data needed on the effectiveness of R2T. Currently, the U of M gathers demographic and perceptual data about: (a) candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions relative to teaching; (b) feedback about R2T; and (c) the level of support offered from candidates, PIMs, and administrators. We also gather perceptions about training and impact on P-12 learning from PIMs, and the benefits of R2T from administrators (Exhibits3.4.a.3-5). Further, the original plan called for a system-wide research center to be housed at Middle Tennessee State University; this was relocated to the U of M Center for Research in Education Policy (CREP) in 2012. Representatives from TBR and the TBR institutions met with representatives from the CREP in May 2012 to begin the process of crafting some research questions based on areas of interest common to all six institutions. Representatives from CREP visited TBR institutions during the spring of 2013 in order to engage stakeholders more fully in defining the research component of the TI. (Exhibit TI.4.a.2) The process to incorporate R2T into the MAT program at the U of M began several years ago and continues to the present time. Reasons for this are outlined in the section above. Strong partnerships were established early and are continually strengthened by efforts from The Director of Teacher Education and Student Support Services, Associate Director of Teacher Education, and Assistant Chair for the Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership who visit each school site, principal and mentor teacher. Co-teaching has become more formalized and teachers are trained in the model (Exhibit 3.4.d.1). We see an increase in collaboration between the COE and other colleges on campus. TI.4 Exhibits

TI.4.a Evidence of TI progress

TI.4.a.1

TI.4.a.2

Chart of edTPA Scores SP 11-SP 15 R2T U of M Final Report 2012-2013

TI.4.b Rationale for and evidence of changes in implementation

TI.4.b Change & Rationale/Evidence Chart


Standard 1. Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school

professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content

knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and

professional dispositions necessary to help all candidates[7] learn. Assessments indicate

that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

1.1 What are the significant changes, if any, in what candidate assessment data tell

the EPP about candidates’ meeting professional, state, and EPP standards and

their impact on P-12 candidate learning? Include a statement about programs

not nationally/state reviewed, using data and results from key assessments.

[8,000 characters]

As recorded in AIMS, U of M annual reports of teacher education assessment data reveal consistently positive outcomes regarding undergraduate and graduate candidates meeting and/or exceeding professional, state, and EPP standards for content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, and pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all candidates learn. AIMS data also reveals all teacher education programs are nationally/state reviewed. The most notable changes in these sets of candidate assessment data that have occurred after implementation of the undergraduate Ready2Teach (R2T) TI are demonstrated in: (a) increases in admission and continuation standards, which includes content and pedagogical knowledge; (b) increases in professional knowledge and skills; and (c) increases in candidate learning. Discussion and evidence documenting these changes are presented below and in the Exhibits for Standard 1, as noted.

INCREASES IN UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION AND CONTINUATION STANDARDS The 2008 NCATE report revealed TEP admissions requirements included passing six undergraduate courses with a C- or above; a cumulative GPA of 2.50, passing the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) or ACT at state-determined scores; complete a successful interview with College of Education (COE) faculty, and submit two recommendations from college/university faculty. The Praxis II content and pedagogical knowledge and skills tests were taken during or after candidate teaching. Also noted in the 2008 report, was an overall average Praxis II score of 80% for program completers. Even though these results were considered positive in 2008, upon initial implementation of R2T, it was clear that the admission and continuation standards of candidates needed to be raised to meet increasing national (e.g., No Child Left Behind, NCTQ) and state (e.g., First to the Top; Tennessee Value Added Scores) criteria for greater teaching effectiveness, as reported in the annual Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs. These criteria were used to formulate more rigorous admission and continuation standards for the R2T candidates. This is noted in the document, Changes in Undergraduate TEP Admissions and Continuation Requirements: 2007-2008 Versus 2014-2015 (Exhibit 1.4.a.1). Of key importance are three major changes in admission/continuation requirements: (a) candidates must pass the Praxis CORE writing exam; (b) candidates must have a GPA of 3.00 rather than a 2.50 to be accepted into Residency II; and (c) candidates must pass appropriate Praxis II Content Knowledge and Principles of Teaching and Learning prior to entering Residency II rather than during or after candidate teaching. Overall, the admission and continuation changes to the R2T TI have resulted in teacher candidates better able to meet the rigorous standards of being highly


qualified, as evidenced in increases in professional knowledge and skills and increases in candidate learning.

INCREASES IN UNDERGRADUATE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS A key component of the R2T initiative is the use of a teacher performance assessment (TPA – later changed to edTPA) to provide “real-world” measures of teacher candidate professional knowledge and skills as demonstrated during Residency. The introduction of the TPA served as a stimulus for continuous program revision and improvement. The resulting TPA data not only revealed areas of candidate strength, but importantly, highlighted areas in which candidates needed additional supports. From the first TPA pilot test in Fall 2010 through current implementation of the edTPA, the findings from unbiased national reviews of R2T candidate performance portfolios have been used to make systematic curriculum, instructional, and experiential changes and improvements in the R2T program. For example, TPA/edTPA data, combined with other data, have been the stimulus for changes in the sequencing of courses, as well as the increased expectations for candidate use of academic language, reflective writing, research-based practices, use of candidate performance data and community and cultural awareness to individualize instruction to meet the needs of all candidates (e.g., ESL, special needs), while cultivating professional dispositions for a successful career. Evidence of these changes is reflected in the R2T degree sheets, course syllabi lesson plan template, and assessment instruments. Key evidence of the success of these changes is seen in edTPA data from the most recent three years. Specifically, as seen in Chart 1 of Exhibit 1.4.e.2 the edTPA data reveal the following notable 2011 to 2014 improvements in R2T candidate performance regarding their competencies to plan effective instruction (79.5% increase: 2011 m = 2.63; 2014 m = 3.31) to teach candidates (76.4% increase: 2011 m = 2.39; 2014 m = 3.13), and to assesses and impact candidate learning (76.8% increase: 2011 m = 2.45; 2014 m = 3.19). A similar positive trend is evidenced when comparing reviewer ratings for Fall 2011 versus Spring 2014 by percent of scores at each of the five levels (Chart 2, Exhibit 1.4.e.2). Of importance are the decrease in low scores of 1 (-3%) and 2 (-38%) and the increase in higher scores of 3 (17%), 4 (23%) and 5 (2%). The edTPA data reveal R2T candidates are continually demonstrating increased knowledge and skills competence. INCREASES IN STUDENT LEARNING Continuous evaluation and improvement of undergraduate R2T program, such as raising the admission and continuation standards for the R2T candidates and revising program curriculum, instructional approaches, and candidate P-12 classroom experiences, are yielding increases in p-12 student. Key evidence is seen in candidate edTPA P-12 student learning outcomes as well as the annual TN State Report Card. Regarding increases in edTPA data, each candidate’s edTPA submission includes assessment of actual P-12 student learning that is documented with candidate assessment of real work samples coupled with instructive feedback to the student and video of actual classroom instruction and assessment administration (Exhibits 1.4.f.1a-c). Data reveal R2T candidates are demonstrating continuous improvement in this area (Exhibit 1.4.e.3). For example, teacher candidate performance on edTPA Assessment of P-12 student learning reveal Spring 2013 to Spring 2014 increases in mean scores on the five Task 3 rubrics ranging from +0.25 to +0.55.


Positive trends in P-12 student learning are further evidenced in recent TN State Report Cards, which are beginning to reflect improved teaching effectiveness of candidates as the R2T initiative reached full undergraduate implementation in Fall 2013. The TVAAS data show 2011-12 to 2013-14 increases in P-12 students taught by new U of M graduates who performed as well as (+12%) or better than (+17%) P-12 student with new teachers across TN (Exhibit 1.4.i). Similar trends are seen when comparing new U of M teachers to veteran teachers in that there was a 17% increase in positive significant differences, 21% increase in no significant differences, and a 38% decrease in negative significant differences.

SUMMARY The R2T TI engages in continuous improvement through the examination of candidate assessment data from multiple sources. Resulting positive changes highlighted in this section include increases in admission and continuation standards, which include higher GPA and content and pedagogical knowledge performance requirements, increases in professional knowledge and skills, and increases in candidate learning.

1.3 Transformation Initiative [12,000 characters]

Summarize activities and changes based on data on candidate performance and program

quality that are related to the TI, if TI is related to this standard.

Universities governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) were challenged to develop responsive, self-study approaches to reviewing how they can improve teacher education (TBR, 2011, p.1). TBR selected the R2T program to achieve these goals. Critical components of the R2T program are a year-long “immersion” residency in the P-12 setting, co-teaching, strong partnerships with schools, intensive mentoring, strong content knowledge, and performance-based assessment (Tennessee Board of Regents, 2010). A wide range of R2T assessment data are reviewed regularly to monitor and maintain program quality and effectiveness to ensure program completers achieve the competencies, skills, and dispositions required of highly qualified teachers, as documented in professional, state, and EPP standards. Two areas are highlighted to reflect activities and important changes based on candidate performance and program quality data: changes in the R2T curriculum, and changes in P-12 classroom experiences.

CHANGES IN THE R2T CURRICULUM Candidate performance on key assessments is regularly reviewed to gauge the effectiveness of the R2T curriculum. Two resulting curriculum changes are discussed: 1) revision of the R2T assessment and evaluation course; and 2) increased program-wide emphasis on planning, instruction, and assessment.

Revision of the R2T Assessment and Evaluation Course Fall 2011 through Fall 2013 edTPA data reveal teacher candidates were less proficient with assessment as compared to planning and instruction (Exhibit 1.4.e.2). These data were the primary basis for a strategic revision of the R2T ICL 3333 Assessment and Evaluation course (Exhibit 1.4.a.2). The first step was to form a curriculum task force comprised of ICL faculty who teach the course, faculty with assessment expertise, and school curriculum supervisors. The task force reviewed multiple data and information sources to identify areas of needed


improvement. The candidate level edTPA performance data on the five Assessment rubrics (edTPA Rubrics11-15) was of critical importance to course redesign decisions. The resulting revisions included more practice in creating authentic assessments such as: (a) rubrics; (b) increased hands-on experience in using formative evaluation techniques based on candidate performance data; (c) increased practice individualizing instruction; and (d) completing Battelle for Kids (an online professional learning portal) modules on how to analyze state-provided data, such as TVAAS and TCAP. The revised ICL 3333 was pilot tested in 2013. Candidate performance on the Assessment portion of the edTPA for Spring 2014 (m = 3.19) reveals a 44.0% increase as compared to the Fall 2013 data (m = 2.75). These findings suggest the curriculum changes had a positive effect on teacher candidate competencies to develop and effectively use assessments of candidate learning. Subsequently, the Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Program revised the graduate Assessment and Evaluation course, ICL 7030, based on the undergraduate design. Outcomes of this revision will be assessed Fall 2015, when edTPA is fully implemented in the MAT program. Increased Emphasis on Planning, Instruction, and Assessment The second curriculum change was more systemic in that it not only involved changes to R2T course content, but also involved faculty professional development (PD) to better understand the R2T TI. Systemic changes to courses primarily included the use of a standardized R2T Lesson Plan Template. The template embeds critical components associated with planning, instruction, and assessment for which teacher candidates demonstrate competencies required by professional, state, and EPP standards, and to demonstrate impact on P-12 student learning. The lesson plan is an assessment in most methods courses. The lesson plan performance data in LiveText can be reviewed by individual courses, combined by degree, by all degrees, or by standards. These data are used during annual data retreat meetings to identify areas of success and needed improvement. Early 2011-2012 edTPA findings suggested the need for additional faculty PD to address moderate outcomes in planning, instruction, and assessment. Implementation of the R2T required the participation of ICL faculty in multiple PD sessions to understand and support the TI. The systemic inclusion of a standardized lesson plan template and scoring rubric required further PD sessions focused on the edTPA and how the lesson plan components build teacher candidate ability to plan, instruct, and assess effective lessons. The PD engaged faculty in hands-on practice with sample edTPA tasks and question/answer activities to clarify the process. Additional PD occurred when program coordinators and faculty from each program area taught courses for Residency I and II. These experiences resulted in further refinement of R2T curriculum, (e.g., increased use of reflective writing, modeling of formative evaluation processes, greater emphasis on academic language and Common Core, integration of ESL activities, and development of diversity standards). Once again, the positive trends in edTPA data suggest these curricular changes are resulting in improved teacher candidate preparation to be effective teachers (Exhibit 1.4.e.2).

CHANGES IN P-12 CLASSROOM AND SCHOOL EXPERIENCES Key assessment data and R2T program goals have served as criteria for continuous improvement of teacher candidate experiences in P-12 classrooms and schools. Three examples of significant changes in classroom and school experiences are discussed: (a) increased time in classrooms and


schools; (b) more focused classroom experiences; and (c) change from mentor teachers to Pre-Service Instructive Mentors.

Increased Time in Classrooms and Schools Professional, state, and EPP standards emphasize the need for teacher candidates to spend more time in P-12 schools. The R2T TI addresses this need through requiring candidates in their senior year to complete a year-long residency, which includes more than 800 hours of clinical experience in one school rather than a combination of field experience and one semester of candidate teaching, sometimes in two school placements. In addition to staying in the same school for an entire academic year, candidate time was also increased by being required to be at their schools the first day teachers reported to work – even though this was before the start of U of M classes. During the extra time at their assigned school, candidates participate in a variety of activities, thus gaining robust experiences in various settings. These experiences include things such as (a) participating in July/August faculty meetings, (b) setting up the classroom, (c) professional development sessions, (d) parent-teacher conferences, and (e) PTA meetings. Teacher candidates also help with school supported community projects as service learning activities. The purpose of increased time in classrooms and schools is to engage or “immerse” candidates as a participant in the school and community culture.

More Focused Classroom Experiences Initially, the year-long residency could begin in Fall or Spring. Candidates who began in the Fall remained in the same school with the same teacher and candidates for Residency I and II. Candidates who began Residency in the Spring also remained in the same school with the same teacher; however, they had different students when returning in the Fall for Residency II. Feedback from the candidates, mentor teachers, and university supervisors revealed distinct benefits of remaining with the same students throughout an entire academic year. Important among these benefits was the opportunity to experience the outcomes of individualized instruction, implementation of IEPs, classroom management plans, and uses of formative evaluation to improve candidate learning because candidates could see changes in P-12 student leaning and behavior over the course of the year. As a result, the R2T now requires all candidates to begin Residency during the Fall semester to ensure they remain with the same teacher and P-12 students throughout the school year. Change from Mentor Teacher to Pre-Service Instructive Mentors A third significant change in the R2T program was switching from Mentor Teachers to Pre-Service Instructive Mentors (PIMs) (Murley, Nelson, Flynt, 2013). Beyond the name change, the critical revision was the addition of rigorous criteria for PIMs that extend beyond the state requirements of having a regular Tennessee License for the teaching assignment, at least four years of teaching experience, and a history of positive evaluations from their principal or supervisor. Specifically, partner schools and the COE Office of School Based Clinical Practice (OSBCP) collaborate to select PIMs who are: (a) excellent classroom teachers; (b) have had PD related to being a mentor; (c) willing to practice co-teaching as defined in U of M delivered PD; (d) have scored a 4 or 5 (out of 5) on their teacher evaluations; and (e) have demonstrated positive impact on candidate achievement as reflected by TVASS. The key rationale for this significant change was that candidates need to learn FROM and WITH exemplary teachers if


they are expected to emerge from the year-long residency fully prepared to enter the classroom as a teacher who effectively improves P-12 student learning. Data from edTPA (Exhibit 1.4.e.1-4) and the TN State Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs (Exhibit 1.4.i.1) reveal the positive outcomes in teacher candidate knowledge and skills and improved P-12 student learning, suggesting these programmatic changes in R2T curriculum and classroom and school experiences are beneficial. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related

to this standard.

SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI The U of M plans to sustain the R2T program, as it is “The” state approved undergraduate teacher education program, rather than an “add-on” program that is being pilot tested as a TI. Requirements for R2T admissions, TEP acceptance, year-long residency, and the three BSED degrees in the R2T program (Early Childhood, Integrative Studies, and Teaching all Learners) are in the official U of M Undergraduate Catalog. Additionally, continuation of the edTPA requirement without added costs for teacher candidates is supported through a TBR approved candidate fee on TEP courses (Exhibit 6.4.e.1-2). Sustenance of the year-long residency of candidates in one school is maintained through well-established collaborative agreements and processes with local and regional school districts (Exhibit 3.4.a.2). Of key importance to enhancing progress is the continued use of formative evaluation processes to inform data based decisions for program improvement. Secondly, plans are in place to receive candidate level teacher effectiveness data of program completers, which will enhance the ability to more specifically address areas of needed improvement in the undergraduate programs. Additionally, beginning Fall 2015, the R2T program will pilot test a Junior Year program in which candidates are assigned to one or more distinctly urban school(s) for a 2-semester beginning immersion experience. Candidates’ field experiences in the assigned school(s) will occur 1-2 days every week. Similar to the year-long Residency, the main goal of the junior year pilot is to provide more purposeful classroom experiences, while becoming engaged in the school and community culture. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. Exhibits

1.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes to candidate content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and professional knowledge and skills, if TI is related to this standard

1.4.a.1 1.4.a.2

Changes in Undergraduate TEP Admissions & Continuation Syllabus for ICL 3333 Student Assessment and Instructional Decision-Making

1.4.b Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any


No Documentation Needed

1.4.c State program review documents and state findings from the most recent visit(s) (For program information NOT already available in AIMS)

1.4.c.1 State findings not in AIMS

1.4.d Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing candidate learning and dispositions against standards and proficiencies identified in the EPP’s conceptual framework (For program information NOT already available in AIMS)

1.4.d.1 Key Assessments for programs not in AIMS

1.4.e Data and summaries of results on key assessments, including proficiencies identified in the EPP’s conceptual framework disaggregated by program, and for off-campus, distance learning, and alternative route programs, as appropriate

1.4.e.1 1.4.e.2 1.4.e.3 1.4.e.4

Summary BSED 14-15 edTPA Scores Sorted by Program-Location edTPA Performance Charts FA11-SP14 Teacher Candidate Performance on edTPA Assessment of Student Learning SP13 - SP14 MAT Candidates’ edTPA Results

1.4.f Examples of candidates’ assessment and analysis of P-12 student learning

1.4.f.1 1.4.f.1a 1.4.f.1a 1.4.f.1a 1.4.f.1a 1.4.f.1b 1.4.f.1b 1.4.f.1b 1.4.f.1b 1.4.f.1c 1.4.f.1c 1.4.f.1c

Summary of Candidate Samples of Assessment and Analysis of P-12 Learning Candidate 1 Assessment Commentary Candidate 1 Evidence of Feedback Student A Candidate 1 Evidence of Feedback Student B Candidate 1 Evidence of Feedback Student C Candidate 2 Assessment Commentary Candidate 2 Student A Feedback Candidate 2 Student B Feedback Candidate 2 Student C Feedback Candidate 3 Assessment Commentary Candidate 3 Evidence of Student Feedback Candidate 3 Student Work Samples

1.4.g Follow-up studies of graduates and summaries of the results

1.4.g.1 Teacher Candidate Survey Summary

1.4.h Employer feedback on graduates and summaries of the results

1.4.h.1 School Partner Survey Summary

1.4.i Data collected by state and/or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs and the effectiveness of their graduates in classrooms and schools including student achievement data, when available

1.4.i.1 TN Report Card on Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs – TVAAS

1.4.j Findings of other national accreditation associations related to the preparation of education professionals (e.g., ASHA, NASM, APA, CACREP)


1.4.j.1 1.4.j.2

Accreditation Letters from SACS, Art, Music, and Dance Accreditation Information from CACREP


2. Standard 2. The EPP has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on

applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and EPP operations to

evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.

2.1 What are the significant changes in how the EPP uses its assessment system to

improve candidate performance, program quality and EPP operations?

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM The College of Education (COE) Assessment System (COEAS) provides a common framework for assessing the EPP, and all of its constituent programs, including preparation of teachers and other school professionals at the initial and advanced or continuing education levels. The U of M COEAS is designed to: (a) monitor growth of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions; (b) determine the efficacy of curriculum and assessment of all COE programs; and (c) structure periodic analysis of data to improve EPP operations and quality. Procedures are in place for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance (Exhibit 2.4.c.1). The Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department (ICL), the largest in the COE holds data retreats in spring (by program area) and fall (by degree level) to analyze data (Exhibit 2.4.d.1-4). The smaller departments or programs do not hold formal retreats but analyze data and make appropriate changes. Program faculty members analyze regularly collected, compiled, aggregated and summarized data make improvements. Initial and advanced program preparation programs in the EPP regularly change, add or refine Key Assessments to accurately represent National and EPP Standards. A chart is provided showing alignment between the Conceptual Framework Pillars of Practice, the 2012 InTASC Standards and SPA Standards (Exhibit I.4.a.5). It was noted during the creation of this document that a formalized review mechanism for the assessment system does not exist. This is an area to be addressed by a new committee beginning in Fall 2015. This committee will be composed of the Director of Assessment and representative program/department faculty members who will meet at least once per semester. Members will review rubrics for robustness, validity, and correlation with relevant standards. The committee will also work to develop and standardize assessments (Diversity and Disposition Standards) to be used across all programs and mechanisms for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data. The committee will review data from program areas and report to the department chairs and college dean (Exhibit 2.4.d.5). DATA COLLECTION FOR UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE A significant change since 2008 is the increased emphasis on specific student achievement; thus all programs continually maintain data used for SACS and data retreats. These data are gathered at five main points during each program. Exhibit 2.4.d.2 provides a chart of the assessments by program with a summary at the end. Data are collected (1) before admission to the Teacher Education Program; (2) in early coursework; (3) mid-program coursework; and (4) toward the end of the program (i.e., summative assessments); and (5) capstone assessments. A quarter (25%) of the data collection assessments occur early; either before admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP) or during early coursework. These are typically PRAXIS exams,


content tests, and written papers. A third (32.81%) of the data collection assessments occur during the middle of a program and include such things as lesson plans, case studies, and content assessments, or residency projects. The bulk (42.19%) of these assessments occurs at the end of a program or as capstone assessments. End of program assessments include summative teaching evaluations or comprehensive written projects. Capstone data collection assessments include things such as edTPA portfolios, dissertations, and thesis. Data Collection and Analysis Live Text was incorporated in 2012 and houses over 160 ICL assessment rubrics. The Director of Assessment is responsible for the uploading of ICL assessments to LiveText and to courses. Email reminders are sent to faculty members at the beginning of the semester and again near the end of each semester to remind them to score assessments in LiveText. (Exhibits 2.4.e.2-5). Live Text is particularly helpful with common assessments and rubrics that cross program or level (BSED/MAT) boundaries (i.e., Summative Clinical Evaluation, Lesson Plans). The edTPA crosses these boundaries and the scores received from Pearson are recorded by the Director of Assessment. LiveText interacts with Banner (U of M data management), but is used as a component separate from the required Desire2Learn (D2L) course management system the university uses. ICL candidates are required to purchase LiveText in a particular course and are expected to upload course-driven assignments (COEAS tracked assessments) into both the university course management system and LiveText. School Counseling plans to incorporate the use of LiveText in the very near future. Faculty in the School Administration and Supervision advanced or continuing preparation program, School Counseling, and Physical Education Teacher Education initial licensure program are able to keep their data in-house. There are fewer candidates enrolled in these programs and there are generally single sections of courses offered in cohort models. Data are also gathered by the university through Banner and Matrix (data management system) that are used in the required reports as well as provided to programs at annual data retreats. The Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services surveys candidates, faculty and partner school administrators each year to determine satisfaction with our candidates (Exhibits

3.4.a.2-5). This office has also been able to gather some data where principals have attributed their students’ performance on TVASS (state gr. 3-8 assessment) to having our candidates in their schools. Our largest partner district provided data showing 75% of our alumni score a 4-5 (5 point scale) on their yearly evaluations in comparison with 50% of traditional student teachers and 50% of transitionally licensed teachers who do so (Exhibit 3.4.a.1). USE OF DATA FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT Data gathered over the last few years during data analysis sessions has led to a variety of changes. Most notably are curriculum changes or changes made to courses and/or programs. Curriculum Changes Changes to courses or assessments incorporate specific experiences related to standards. For instance, Teaching All Learners (TALN) faculty realized during the 2015 ICL data retreat that course revisions are necessary so candidates’ early experiences include more emphasis on working with students having special needs.


New or revised courses/programs A new ICL 3333 (Student Assessment and Instructional Decision Making) course (Exhibit

1.4.a.2) was created and this influenced a revised ICL 7030 (Assessment and Evaluation) course. Two courses highlighting the needs of ELL students are in development by Reading Program faculty for graduate and undergraduate candidates. School Administration and Supervision, Special Education and Middle Level Education are currently revising their programs. These changes are in response to state and funding mandates and earlier program-specific data. EPP OPERATIONS An Assessment Handbook for the COE is in draft format (Exhibit 2.4.d.6). No evidence of an existing document for the COE was found. Each program in each department holds regular meetings and annual data analysis meetings. Results of the data analysis are sent to the department chair and, until 2011, were compiled in the annual departmental report sent to the COE Dean. In 2012 Chairs were given a set of Goals by the U of M Provost to address. These were revised in 2013 and Chairs provided a 3-year plan for meeting the goals. Goals focus on scholarship, student success, external funding, degrees/certificates awarded, online enrollment and undergraduate admission Exhibit 2.4.c.2. SUMMARY The assessment system in place allows us to clearly address NCATE Standard 2 by collecting and analyzing data with respect to our assessment system, candidate performance and EPP operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates and make changes. 2.3 Transformation Initiative



Survey Data The Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services has gathered survey data from one school district indicating candidate success in their initial teaching years, but it is not robust enough to extrapolate to the entire Ready to Teach (R2T) program. These data indicate that a significant number of alumni score 4-5 (5-point scale) on the state teacher evaluation measures during their first three year of teaching. We understand the state is working on a mechanism to share these data with EPPs. Additional surveys of faculty, administrators, candidates and mentors suggest concerns held by administration that candidates need to be better at classroom management and lesson pacing (Exhibits 1.4.g.1 and 1.4.h.1). According to R2T candidates, the areas that appear most troubling and where their reported efficacy was less than 90% in these two years were (a) managing classroom behavior, (b) lesson pacing and timing, and (c) developing parent-teacher relationships. Candidates during the 2012-13 academic year expressed less comfort with (d)


understanding cultural and individual diversity; candidates in all but the Spring 2015 expressed less agreement with (e) aligning instruction with Common Core State Standards. Data from administrators since 2012 has indicated that our BSED R2T candidates do very well in most areas for beginning teachers with most (90% or more) PIMs and Administrators agreeing with positive statements about the topics listed above. The areas that data showed caused the most issues were, (a) assessment of students and using the assessment to plan further instruction, (b) considering students’ strengths or culture when planning lessons, (c) classroom management, and (d) organizing and managing time and space. Similarly, edTPA data has shown students had trouble (a) assessing students and using that data to plan further lessons and (b) considering student’s cultural assets when planning instruction. These concerns from R2T candidates and administrators are being addressed in pre-residency, residency, and MAT Level 1-2 courses where management and lesson planning are discussed. Changes to weekly schedule are made based on surveys and focus groups composed of candidates and the preservice instructive mentors (PIMs) who hosted them in recent years indicated that mentors and candidates wanted more focus on clinical experiences (Exhibits

1.4.g.1 and 1.4.h.1). Rather that the two days per week that the original agreement with the local school districts stated. A pilot was initiated whereby Residency 1 methods coursework was completed in the first seven weeks of the semester and the last eight weeks the candidates were in their PIM’s classroom all day five days a week for the last seven weeks of the semester. This change was implemented for all R2T candidates beginning Fall 2014. Additional surveys are scheduled to ascertain if this shift in structure has a positive effect. Discussions are currently being held to ascertain the effectiveness of this arrangement. Part of original Ready2Teach proposal from the state included residency during the junior and senior years. The junior year residency was not implemented by any of the six TBR institutions. A handful of U of M professors, initiated by Interim Dean Rakow, is working through a shared-governance model to pilot this in Fall 2015. edTPA A major part of the IT is the edTPA as a Capstone Assessment with results being consequential. We began phasing in the edTPA in 2010 and transitioned to full implementation in all undergraduate initial certification programs by fall 2014. Local scoring occurred during the earliest semesters with submission to Pearson in Spring 2012. Graduate initial licensure candidates completed the edTPA in Spring 2015 and were scored locally because this was their first experience with the edTPA. Graduate candidates will submit portfolios to Pearson for official scoring beginning in fall 2015. A wealth of data has helped us make decisions about courses and content. Lessons learned from analysis of the edTPA results from earlier semesters revealed a need for increased attention to; (a) lesson sequence planning, (b) writing commentaries, and (c) assessment & analysis of P-12 children. Activities were inserted into coursework to prepare both undergraduate and graduate candidates for the capstone task. Curriculum changes Curriculum changes such as the creation of an undergraduate course specifically designed to prepare preservice teachers to assess candidates (ICL 3333, Student Assessment and Instructional Decision Making) Exhibit 1.4.a.2 was designed because earlier reports noted


candidates were not proficient in the areas of formative & summative assessment and analyzing & using data. The course has been in existence for several semesters and in SPRING 2014, the 37 assessments in ICL that measured Assessment (old TN Standard 8) indicate 94.96% of undergraduate candidates scored at either Target or Acceptable. Tennessee now follows the 2012 InTASC Standards rather than a separate set. The course is included in all programs under the undergraduate R2T TI. The graduate level assessment and evaluation course (ICL 7030: Assessment & Evaluation) was revamped along the same lines as ICL 3333; we expect Fall 2015 data from MAT candidates to reflect the changes. Formative Assessments Formative Assessments are prominent in courses that are part of the R2T TI. For instance, ELED 3251 (Methods of Teaching Math in the Elementary Grades) includes quizzes each week that inform the professors about what knowledge candidates need or already have. Other formative assessments include lesson plans, writing commentaries, assorted tasks that resemble those of the edTPA, and summative teaching assessments administered early. Key Assessment foci are continually refined by programs as the SPAs update their standards. For example, in Fall 2013 when SPA midterm reports were submitted to the various SPAs, our Early Childhood program submitted nearly all new assessments and rubrics because NAEYC recently revamped its standards. Other programs (i.e., Teaching all Learners) submitted revised assessments and rubrics because the CEC revised its standards and the program faculty members believed that the new assessments and rubrics more nearly met the CEC and ACEI Standards as well as the needs of the program. The new assessments are uploaded into the LiveText Data Management System. Both programs are part of the R2T TI. Bias Procedures are in place for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance and evaluation. All assessments are administered to all candidates matriculating into prescribed courses (e.g., ECED 4520, SPED 3803, ELED 3251. PETE 3604, ICL 7303, ICL 7602). (Exhibit 2.4.a.3-4) In ICL department, common syllabi, assessments and scoring tools are created by the Professor of Record (POR) who has the deepest and broadest knowledge of the content for a particular course in conjunction with other professors in the program area who share knowledge of the content. All professors (full-time and part-time) who teach a given course must use the prescribed syllabus, assessments and scoring tools. Thus, we ensure that all candidates in a given course are provided with the same content and assessed using the same instruments and scoring tools. The School Administration and Supervision Program and the Physical Education Teacher Education Program have small numbers of candidates and generally have one section of each course and one professor teaching a specific course so consistency is less of an issue. The use of data from edTPA results provides fair, consistent and accurate results to inform our instruction and support of candidates as they become competent novice teachers. The U of M uses this high-stakes capstone assessment as a consequential event in terms of licensure recommendations.


ICL Department faculty full-time and part-time members are trained in scoring candidates’ assessments using the scoring rubrics in LiveText. The Director of Assessment initially conducted large-scale LiveText training sessions for candidates and faculty members. Individual training is offered as requested. In addition, printed and electronic tutorials are available for both faculty members and candidates. Due to the smaller numbers for School Administration and Supervision and the Physical Education Teacher Education, they do not currently use LiveText although they were encouraged to do so by the former dean. Student achievement data relative to the TI make up a large number of the assessment rubrics housed in LiveText. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related

to this standard.

SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI The student achievement data used to document the TI will be sustained through the continued use of LiveText by all faculty members and the diligent oversight of the Director of Assessment. The annual Data Retreats will enhance faculty knowledge of the candidates’ pre-residency achievement. Research continues to be conducted by Drs. Sutton, Murley and Nelson (i.e., Nelson, J., Murley, R. & Flynt, E.S. (2012). edTPA: Lessons Learned. edTPA National Conference, San Diego, CA.) along with others will provide the necessary guidance in how the candidates achieve goals during their residency semesters (methods and student teaching). Maintaining and documenting the TI Rubrics associated with Pre-Residency and Residency I courses and assessments are completed by the professors of those assessments. Candidates upload created documents for their courses’ required Key Assessments to both the LiveText Data Management System and the Desire2Learn (D2L) software system were are mandated by the Tennessee Board of Regents to use. It is a bit cumbersome, but candidates are directed to do both. Faculty members are then reminded to use the associated rubrics and score the candidates, not simply put in the numeric score. Candidates can see the scores once the faculty member has scored his/her rubric. Rubrics associated with Residency I assessments generated at the clinical sites are completed by either the Director of Assessment or the office staff in the Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services (e.g., Summative Evaluation) for each candidate. It was determined that requiring clinical site faculty (teachers) and university supervisors who are often retired teachers supervising only a handful of candidates to create a LiveText account and then assigning them to particular sub-sections of candidates was burdensome and unwieldy for administrative purposes. Either the Director of Assessment or office staff in the Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services enters the scores from the hardcopy documents completed by the clinical site or supervisory personnel in the field (Exhibit 2.4.a.5). The edTPA scores associated with Residency II and received from Pearson after external scoring is completed are entered into LiveText for each candidate by the Director of Assessment. SUMMARY The assessment system in place allows us to clearly address and sustain our TI by collecting and analyzing data (i.e., surveys, edTPA, formative assessments) on undergraduate and graduate


candidate performance to evaluate and improve candidates’ achievement. Common rubrics and assessments allow data gathering across program areas. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. 2.4 Exhibits

2.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes to the EPP’s assessment system including the requirements and key assessments used at transition points, if TI is related to this standard

2.4.a.1 2.4.a.2 2.4.a.3 2.4.a.4 2.4.a.5

Evidence of TI Related Changes to the Assessment System Screen Shots Showing 161 Rubrics in LiveText Directions for SPED 3803 Classroom Wide Behavior Management Plan Rubric for SPED 3803 Classroom Wide Behavior Management Plan Sample Summative Assessment for 2014-2015 TEAM



2.4.c Procedures for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of program quality and EPP operations

2.4.c.1 2.4.c.2

Procedures for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias. COE Departmental Goals for 2011-2012

2.4.d Policies and procedures for data use that demonstrate how data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and used to make improvements

2.4.d.1 2.4.d.2 2.4.d.3 2.4.d.4 2.4.d.5 2.4.d.6

Policies and Procedures for regular data collection Summary and Master List of Assessments Spring 2014 LiveText Assessments 2013-2014 ICL Data Retreat Agenda Assessment System Review Committee COE Assessment Handbook – DRAFT

2.4.e Examples of significant changes made to courses, programs, and the EPP in response to data gathered from the assessment system

2.4.e.1 2.4.e.2 2.4.e.3 2.4.e.4 2.4.e.5

Examples of Significant Changes to the Assessment System Rubric for Mathematics Content Test ELED 3251/ICL 7504 Rubric for ICL 7562 Residency I Lesson Plan ECED Data Retreat Comments MAT Data Retreat Comments


Standard 3: Field Experience and Clinical Practice

3.1 What are the significant changes in how the EPP works with school partners to deliver

field experiences and clinical practice to enable candidates to develop the knowledge, skills,

and dispositions to help all students learn? (8000 characters)

EPP AND SCHOOL PARTNERS Over the past four years, the EPP has been nurturing existing P-12 partnerships and establishing new ones because of their importance to the Ready2Teach (R2T) year-long residency program (Exhibit 3.4.f.4). A partial list of schools in one county is shown in Exhibit 3.4.a.2. We have Memoranda Of Understanding (MOU) (Exhibit 3.4.f.2) with each of our partner districts that reflect both parties’ decision to place University of Memphis (U of M) candidates only with Preservice Instructive Mentors (PIMs) who have scored a composite 4 or 5 (5 is highest) on either of the state’s teacher evaluation systems (Exhibits 3.4.g.3-4). Specific requirements for PIMs are in Exhibit 3.4.c.1. In addition, the commitment to rich and productive partnerships has resulted in a “face-to-face” approach to partnerships. The Director of Teacher Education, Associate Director of Teacher Education, Assistant Chair for the Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL) spend an enormous amount of time visiting each school site in conversations with the principals and PIMs. In addition, Residency I Supervisors spent two days per week in their assigned schools. The EPP was the first in the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) System to start the Residency prior to the first day of school for K-12 students. This was based on the conversations with, and data collection from, our partner principals and PIMs. There are significant changes in the manner in which the EPP collaborates with school partners to provide quality clinical experiences particularly in undergraduate licensure programs that have been redesigned as part of the R2T TI. These changes are ongoing and revisited annually. Faculty, partner school PIMs, partner school principals and candidates provide input (Exhibits

3.4a.3-5). Clinical assessments continue to evolve to better assess candidates’ professional dispositions, teaching performance and content knowledge. The candidate evaluations used by the EPP in all initial licensure programs are based the state’s approved teacher evaluation systems (Exhibits 3.4g.3-4).

2013-2014 was the year when all BSED programs implemented the R2T year-long residency and subsequent administration of the edTPA. Prior to this launch year, multiple discussions with the various program areas occurred via the Teacher Education Advisory Council (Exhibit 3.4.f.1), EPP departmental meeting, and with P-12 representatives in order to optimize the implementation in all areas. Much of the groundwork occurred with the implementation of R2T four years ago with Teaching All Learners (TALN). Meetings with all partner schools (principals and PIMs) occurred prior to Fall 2013. Residency I candidates’ schedule included one day during inservice week prior to the first day of school, the first full week of school and then two days a week for the remainder of the semester. In Fall 2013 a pilot schedule based on feedback from PIMs and candidates that moved the schedule to a 7-week course cycle with the candidates being in their PIMs’ classrooms five days a week for the last eight weeks of the semester occurred. The


resulting follow up focus groups resulted in moving to this model for the 2014-2015 academic years but has met with mixed reviews. The Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program has not been able to implement R2T and the reasons are explained later in this standard. Completers have a traditional 15-week, 2-placement clinical practicum (Exhibit 3.4.f.3). The requirements for mentors and the assessments used with MAT candidates are the same as those in R2T. (MAT Handbook is too large to upload; similar to R2T handbook). FIELD EXPERIENCES Initial program field experiences prior to the Residency and Clinical Teaching are centralized to assure placements occur in diverse settings/schools and with qualified mentors. Advanced and Other School Professionals require field and/or clinical experiences. Candidates in initial licensure programs are placed in a variety of settings and school types during their programs of study. The Office of School Based Clinical Practice (OSBCP) works with partner districts to place candidates (Exhibit 3.4.f.9).

Advanced programs leading to add-on endorsements, such as Reading Specialist, and advanced programs leading to administration licensure, school counseling, school psychology, school library media and speech language pathology all have carefully planned and supervised field experiences and practica/internships in a variety of settings. There are three notable examples; the Applied Behavior Analysis Program places candidates in 1-3 settings for 1000 hours (4 semesters) and the School Library Information Specialist program places candidates in related settings for 200 field hours. School Counseling MS candidates have a 130-150 hour internship. ICL MS candidates are typically employed in a school, and field work often occurs there, so hours cannot be counted. The OSBCP works to place candidates for these experiences. The School Counseling Program places and tracks their candidates. Field Experiences prior to the Residency and Clinical Teaching continue to be centralized to assure placements occur in diverse settings in a variety of different kinds of schools. The placements are made through the OSBCP in concurrence with LEAs. Recently, focused virtual field experiences have augmented on-site experiences in some courses. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS The R2T Program at the U of M is designed so that there is consistency and coherence across all program areas. All evaluations, dispositional assessments and summative evaluations are based on the evaluation systems used by our partnering LEAs. One of the hallmarks of the program is co-teaching. Although the R2T program has embraced the idea for several years, co-teaching has become more formalized due to conversations, surveys of PIMs and feedback from candidates. The Associate Director of Teacher Education and the ICL Assistant Chair participated in a three-day train the trainer workshop around Co-Teaching conducted by experts from St. Cloud University. The result has been the establishment of ongoing professional development opportunities for all PIMs, candidates, and Residency Supervisors (Exhibit 3.4.d.1). Candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions are assessed with a Summative Assessment based on the TEAM (state teacher assessment) and adapted for the university candidates.


Dispositions are assessed in both pre-residency coursework and during placements in partner schools. Along with dispositional assessments, the EPP also has a list of specific behaviors that can result in disqualification from the program (Exhibits 3.4.f.5-7). Another change was in the admission and continuing program requirements (Exhibit 1.4.a.1). These changes are: (a) all candidates must pass the three Praxis CORE writing exams; (b) undergraduate candidates must have a GPA of 2.75 and graduates must have a GPA of 3.0; and (c) all candidates must pass appropriate Praxis II Content Knowledge and Principles of Teaching and Learning prior to entering Residency II/Clinical Teaching Semester rather than during or after the final semester. Overall, these changes to the R2T TI have resulted in teacher candidates better able to meet the rigorous standards of being highly qualified, as evidenced in increases in professional knowledge and skills and increases in student learning. Data from our largest LEA demonstrate that our graduate and undergraduate candidates impact student achievement and perform at or above their expectations (Exhibit 3.4.a.1). SUMMARY The EPP has, over the past three years, raised both expectations for professionalism and performance through initial licensure candidates’ intense field experiences and increased admission requirements. Advanced programs continue to focus on relevant field experiences that enhance candidate achievement. 3.2 Summarize activities and assessments that demonstrate correction of any areas for

improvement from the previous visit, if applicable.

There were no areas of improvement from the previous visit.

3.3 Summarize activities and changes based on data on candidate performance and

program quality that are related to TI if TI is related to this standard. (12,000 characters)

Much of the groundwork had been laid prior to the implementation of R2T four years ago with the largest licensure program, Teaching All Learners (TALN). Meetings with all partner schools (principals and PIMs) occurred early, and often. Prior to Fall 2013, Residency I candidates’ schedule included one day during inservice week prior to the first day of public school, the first full week of school and then two days a week for the remainder of the semester. For the past three years, a great deal of effort has gone into enhancing field and clinical experiences for initial licensure programs. Now, all candidates are required to attend the full inservice week with their PIM and the first full week of public school when children are present. In the case of Early Childhood candidates in kindergarten classrooms, they participate in the first week of the school’s screening assessments and then return the second week when all kindergarteners arrive. This allows candidates to participate and observe how classroom and school routines are initially established. The candidates then leave the public school setting and begin college coursework with the rest of the university.


R2T has caused both curriculum and performance changes. Because feedback from the Master Clinicians, Residency I & II Supervisors and the performance of candidates on edTPA, a new assessment course (Exhibit 1.4.a.2) was developed. The course was developed by faculty members in cooperation with a partnering LEA representative experienced in the work of formative assessment through their partnership with Battelle for Kids (online teacher professional development modules). The new ICL 3333 course, Student Assessment and Instructional Decision Making, or its companion graduate level course (ICL 7030) is required of all initial licensure candidates. Additional changes have occurred because of annual surveys of partner school principals and PIMs. All candidates’ teaching skills are formally evaluated a minimum of 13 times during the year-long residency. Traditional student teachers (candidates seeking licensure through the MAT degree program) are evaluated 12 times. Both PIMs and University Supervisors complete these lesson evaluations. All supervisors are required to participate in training of how to evaluate candidates using either TEAM or TEM lesson evaluations (Exhibits 3.4.g.1-2). One of these two state approved evaluation instruments are used to evaluate candidates depending on which LEA they are placed in to complete their clinical experiences. Both PIM and University Supervisors complete a summative evaluation for each candidate near the end of Residency I and II (BSED) and traditional student teaching (MAT) (Exhibits 3.4.g.3). Another change warranting mentioning is the selection of PIMs. All PIMs must be veteran teachers and volunteers who have consistently scored a 4 or 5 (5 is highest) on their teacher evaluation (TEM or TEAM) (Exhibit 3.4.g.3-4). This is a key part of our MOU with partner districts. We again pay PIMs a stipend through a Fee Differential (Exhibit 6.4.e.1-2). The 2013-2014 academic year’s biggest change has been the result of a pilot program with forty R2T candidates. Their Fall Residency I semester was structured differently than others. The change was a result of surveys and focus groups of candidates and PIMs. The change resulted in some of the Residency 1 methods coursework (math, science, SPED content) being completed in the first seven weeks of the semester and the candidates were in their PIM’s classroom all day five days a week for the last eight weeks of the semester. This change was implemented for all R2T candidates beginning Fall 2014. This will be tweaked slightly for the 2015-16 year based on faculty and candidate feedback. The new format will involve different courses in the 7-week format. Methods courses were difficult for professors and candidates alike and neither believed they put forth their best work. Additional surveys are scheduled to ascertain if this shift in structure has a positive effect. Another change that occurred in Fall 2014 was the change in the seminar that accompanies Residency 1. Instead of meeting only 5 times across the semester, it met weekly. This change occurred because of the need to simulate completion of an entire edTPA portfolio prior to Residency II (Spring semester) when edTPA must be completed and uploaded to Pearson with results being consequential. The MAT Program has also made changes, although not as many as the undergraduate programs. This is due to the nature of the candidates in the MAT. Many candidates are employed full-time as a teacher on a Transitional License. A Transitional License is Tennessee’s alternative path to teacher licensure which requires only 18 hours of course work and passing the appropriate PRAXIS tests. To strengthen both traditional MAT candidates and transitionally licensed


candidates, admittance requirements have been raised and both types of candidate must be successful on the edTPA to be recommended for licensure. Unlike other Tennessee Institutions that use edTPA, the EPP requires candidates to score 4 points ABOVE the national cut score for a licensure recommendation. In addition, transitionally licensed candidates must have a 3.0 (5-point scale, where 5 is highest) on their composite Teacher Evaluation (TEAM or TEM) to be recommended for licensure. The EPP has gone to great lengths to collect data on our candidates' impact on student achievement. During the course of the implementation of R2T, we have two instances where principals have attributed their students’ performance on TVASS (TN state assessment grades 3-8) to the presence of our candidates. Our largest partner district has provided us data that shows 75% of our Residency Candidates score a 4 or 5 on TEM when they become the TEACHER OF RECORD IN THEIR OWN CLASSROOMS while 50% of traditional student teachers score 4or 5 and 50% of Transitionally Licensed candidates score a 4 or 5. These data point to the impact sought by a transformational initiative: Improving Student Achievement (Exhibit3.4.a.1).

An additional change is the collaboration with the College of Arts and Sciences to prepare P-12 teachers of Arts, Music and Dance. Candidates take their required undergraduate non-professional courses in their respective departments and then come to the College of Education for their professional coursework as well as Residency I and II (BSED) coursework and all associated assessments. SUMMARY Because R2T’s fundamental shifts focused on making curriculum connected to the real world of teaching, more refined and extended time in real classrooms and the use of edTPA as the capstone assessment, the initial licensure programs have adjusted course offerings, included problem based learning activities and has integrated the three tasks of edTPA (e.g. planning and assessment, instructing and engaging student learning and assessing student learning). The EPP is committed to the idea that all candidates will be “safe to practice”. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related

to this standard.

SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI Master syllabi, assessments and scoring tools are created by the Professor of Record (POR) who has the deepest and broadest knowledge of the content for a particular course in conjunction with other professors in the program area who share knowledge of the content so all sections of a given course follow the same schedule of topics. This provides consistent experiences and assignments throughout a given program. In addition, some assessments (i.e., lesson plans) cross program areas and use a common template and common rubric. The edTPA is the capstone event for initial certification programs. Aspects of the edTPA have been back-mapped into courses so candidates are prepared before they enter their senior year. For example, candidates are asked to explain their decisions, in writing, when creating some of their lesson plans because the edTPA prompts asks students to write commentaries for each task (Planning, Instructing, and Assessing). Informational meeting were held at various time to


familiarize all full-time and part-time faculty with the aspects and expectations of the edTPA and how seminar instructors are allowed to help candidates without violating the rules set forth from University of Stanford and AACTE. For the first time in ten years, we are also providing a stipend for our PIMs through the Fee Differential (Exhibit 6.4.e.1-2). The TBR approved the differential fee proposed which consists of implementing a fee assessment of $25 per credit hour, or audit hour, for all 3000-4000 level undergraduate education and all 5000-7000 level graduate courses that are part on an initial licensure program as contained in the curriculum plans for each of the six (6) Tennessee Board of Regents schools. This fee revenue is being used to provide, among other things noted in the exhibit, stipends for public school mentor teachers who are critical in working with teacher candidates during the residency year and pay the $300 edTPA scoring fee charged by Pearson. The MAT program is not currently a part of the TI although aspects of the TI are included in the MAT program of study (i.e., edTPA, common syllabi, lesson plan template and rubric). All MAT programs were slated to begin R2T implementation in Fall 2014; however, several factors complicated this plan. Ten years ago the Tennessee Board of Regents limited masters degree programs to 30 credit hours; secondly, because of existing competition and the fact that most of our graduate students work days, all MAT coursework is offered completely online. A third complication is that with and online MAT, we recruit students from other US states and foreign countries; thus field work placements cannot be controlled, monitored, or assessed as we do with the undergraduate programs. Finally, local districts have a history of hiring non-licensed teachers on Transitional Licenses for high-need areas. These teachers concurrently enroll in our MAT but may opt out of their student teaching semester if they meet specific criteria (Exhibit 3.4.f.8).

They must verify through their administrators that they have taught for one year on a Transitional License or three years at an approved Private School. The result is that a majority of our MAT students complete their degree program without a 15-week clinical placement (or traditional student teaching) in a host teacher’s classroom. These situations present a challenge for us as we seek to find a way to incorporate R2T, as it was envisioned into the MAT Program. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. Exhibits

3.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes to the EPP’s assessment system including the requirements and key assessments used at transition points, if TI is related to this standard

3.4.a.1 3.4.a.2 3.4.a.3

LEA Candidate Performance Shelby County Partnership Schools and Process for Identifying Schools Ready2Teach Candidate Survey


3.4.a.4 3.4.a.5

Survey of Partner School Principals Ready2Teach Preservice Instructive Mentor Survey



3.4.c Procedures for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of program quality and EPP operations

3.4.c.1 Requirements for Mentor Teachers and Preservice Instructive Mentors

3.4.d Policies and procedures for data use that demonstrate how data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and used to make improvements

3.4.d.1 Co-Teaching Training Documents

3.4.e Descriptions of requirements for field experiences and clinical practice in programs for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals

3.4.e.1 Field Experience Requirements

3.4.f Guidelines for student teaching and internships (e.g., handbooks)

3.4.f.1 3.4.f.2 3.4.f.3 3.4.f.4 3.4.f.5 3.4.f.6 3.4.f.7 3.4.f.8 3.4.f.9

Teacher Education Advisory Council members Sample Memorandum of Understanding MAT Clinical Teaching Handbook Ready2Teach Residency II Handbook Dispositions and Retention Other Issues for Which Candidates can be Dismissed TEP Dispositional Disqualifications In-Lieu of Student Teaching Tracking Clinical Placements

3.4.g Assessments and scoring rubrics/criteria used in field experiences and clinical practice for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals

3.4.g.1 3.4.g.2 3.4.g.3

Formal Observation Form for Lesson - TEAM Formal Observation Form for Lesson - TEM Summative Evaluation of Residency - TEAM

Standard 4 - Diversity

4.1 - What are the significant changes in how the EPP prepares candidates to work

effectively with all students, including individuals of different ethnicity, race, socioeconomic

status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and/or geographical

area?

Evidence of our commitment to the principles and practices of diversity can be seen in several overarching documents: (a) the Conceptual Framework including The Pillars of Practice (2007) and the (b) College of Education (COE) Diversity Standards (2007) (Exhibits I.4.a.1, 4. The EPP is committed to preparing effective professionals who understand and value diversity, and


who act proactively in all relationships. A matrix provides a crosswalk between the EPP and Professional Education Standards that address diversity (Exhibit I.4.a.5). Candidates have focused field and clinical experiences with students in rural/urban/suburban settings as well as inclusive classrooms. Our initial and advanced courses and associated field work provide multiple experiences for candidates that expose them to diversity in terms of other candidates, students’ cultures, school settings, ethnicities, racial identities, physical, and academic needs. Exhibits 4.4.g.1provides the ethnicities of local P-12 students, while Exhibit 4.4.f.1 notes the diversity of candidates. The EPP is committed to hiring highly qualified and widely recognized faculty members who represent ethnically diverse backgrounds (Exhibits 4.4.e, 5.4.c.1).

CURRICULAR CHANGES In 2011, the U of M revised its diversity plan (Exhibit 4.4.c.2) to include the following directive: “Curriculum and Scholarship: Develop a university‐wide curriculum that guides students to

think critically about social justice and economic justice issues and provides faculty and staff

with the tools to teach, educate and support inclusivity.” Since the last NCATE visit, a new BSED licensure program was developed to better meet the needs of all learners. The Teaching all Learners (TALN) program offers combined Elementary (K-6) and Special Education (K-12) licensure. Elementary and Special Education faculty collaborated to design a program that prepares candidates to meet the differentiated needs of general education students and the academic and/or physical and social needs of students with identified special needs. TALN program completers may elect to be licensed in either, or both, Elementary and Special Education. The state plans to change the SPED grade bands to K-5 and 6-12 so our program will adjust accordingly. The most significant changes is in how the EPP prepares candidates to work effectively with all students have been through increased attention to understanding the impact of diversity on learning and the use of appropriate pedagogical approaches to reach the various needs of all learners. Evidence includes diversity content infused into required initial and advanced program courses (Exhibit 4.4.c.1). In addition, there is increased emphasis on placing candidates in diverse field and clinical settings where they have opportunities to work with P-12 students representing multiple elements of diversity--socioeconomic, ethnicity, linguistic, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and students with physical or academic challenges (Exhibit 4.4.g.1). Examples of learning about diversity are in PETE 3308 (Exceptional Learners in Physical Education) (Exhibit 4.4.c.4). Content includes exploring the nature and etiology of disabilities prevalent in children, knowledge and technical skills pertinent to the design of adapted physical activity programs and the teaching of physical activities for specific disabilities. The Teacher Education Program (TEP) requirements now state that all Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) majors must take this course. The percent of successful candidates taking SPED 3308 in Spring 2013 and 14 (only semesters found) were 86.67% and 82.76%, respectively (Exhibit

4.4.d.3). The U of M equates “success” with earning a grade of “D” or greater. All advanced licensure candidates in the School Leadership department must pass LDPS 7330-8330: Race, Ethnicity, Gender and American Education (Exhibit 4.4.c.3). Content explores the


historical and contemporary study of educational practices and policies related to various ethnic and racial groups, as well as women in the United States; and study of various models of institutional and community forms of multicultural education. The percent of successful candidates taking LDPS 7330/8330 in Spring 2014 (only semester found) was 100% (Exhibit

4.4.d.3). The U of M equates “success” with earning a grade of “D” or greater. Finally, School Counseling tries to place internship students in a mix of urban, suburban, private and public schools or community-based treatment facilities throughout their program of studies. Those candidates seeking an advanced teaching credential or terminal degree are often working in local classrooms which, in most instances, are diverse by default. Candidates in School Administration and Supervision are already working in a school but must complete an internship in another school. Again, by default, local schools are diverse. (Exhibit 4.4.g.1)

Other initial and the advanced licensure programs keep their own records and note that all students must pass a particular course relative to diversity in order to graduate. A list of courses and their experiences with diversity is included (Exhibit 4.4.c.1).

FILM SERIES The U of M’s Diversity Plan attends to social justice under Curriculum and Scholarship. Currently several full-length feature films and others are available in the library for faculty to check out and show to classes offered on campus only. The COE Faculty Development Committee provides teacher guides and lesson plans for these (Exhibits 4.4.a.1-2). Films include MR. HOLLAND’S OPUS (Hollywood Pictures, 1995), TO SIR: WITH LOVE (Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1967) and WAITING FOR SUPERMAN (Electric Kinney Films, 2010). Several professors have already used these in their courses and provided positive feedback. The Faculty Development Committee has discussed plans for a FRIDAY FILM FESTIVAL open to FACULTY AND STUDENTS in conjunction with the university-wide Critical Conversations Committee (co-lead by the Provost) beginning in Fall 2015 to screen and discuss these and other relevant films. A guided discussion will be held after each screening to relate the film to current issues and topics (i.e., racial, gender, or societal issues). MEASURING CANDIDATE ABILITY TO MEET DIVERSE NEEDS It was noted during the creation of this document that diversity is not measured as it relates to candidate impact on student learning or candidates’ knowledge of pedagogy to potentially meet diverse student needs. A new college-wide committee (COE Assessment System Review Committee) to assess the COE assessment system will begin in Fall 2015. This committee will be tasked with reviewing course or program assessments, directions and rubrics for clarity, validity and reliability. An initial focus will be to determine how and where to assess all COE candidates’ ability to potentially meet diverse P-12 student needs. This committee will consist of representatives from all departments’ program areas involved in the preparation (initial or advanced) of P-12 school based faculty. SUMMARY In summary, our educator preparation programs are committed to the inclusion of diversity in our coursework. This commitment is outlined in our Conceptual Framework and Pillars of


Practice. Nearly every course focuses on as aspect of diversity (i.e., academic, racial, cultural, language) in relation to P-12 children. Candidate lesson and unit plans as well as final semester summative teaching evaluations assess how candidates plan for and meet the needs of all children. In addition, faculty and students alike will continue to focus on aspects of diversity through the proposed film series. 4.2 - Summarize activities and assessments that demonstrate correction of any areas for


N/A

4.3 - Transformation Initiative


quality that are related to the TI.

The EPP works to demonstrate that each program completer will begin teaching with at least entry-level knowledge, skills, and dispositions consistent with high-quality teachers that lead to positive academic and social outcomes for all students. COMPLETERS DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DIVERSITY Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL) licensure candidates demonstrate competency relative to (a) The older TN State Professional Educator Standard 3-Diverse Learners which corresponds to the newer InTASC Standard 2-Learning Differences, (b) Pillar of Practice 2-Knowledge of the Learner, (c) Pillar of Practice 3-Pedagogy/Instruction, and (d) Pillar of Practice 5-Management of Classrooms and Individuals. Data from 74 ICL course rubrics (i.e., lesson or unit plans, summative teaching evaluations) between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014 indicate that 85% or more of candidates scored either Acceptable or Target on these four standards when they were measured as part of an assignment. Candidates scored highest on measures relating to Pillar of Practice 3 and Pedagogy/Instruction; and Pillar of Practice 5 Management of classrooms and individuals where 96% scored at those levels (Exhibit 4.4.d.1-2). Faculty members continually refine course experiences, directions, and rubrics in order that candidates are able to demonstrate this indispensable knowledge.

InTASC (2012) Standard 2 (Learning Differences) is embedded in the Conceptual Framework Performance Outcomes that Ready2Teach (R2T) candidates must meet (Exhibit I.4.a.5). To meet this standard, candidates must begin to understand how students differ in their approaches to learning and learn to create instructional opportunities that are adapted to a variety of diverse learners. The following three Pillars of Practice also relate to NCATE Standard 4. Pillar of Practice 2. Knowledge of the Learner Candidates will understand and address the uniqueness of the learners they encounter. Candidates consider the impact of socio-cultural experiences and SES on student preparedness and perspective and respond appropriately to the unique issues faced in urban educational settings.


This Pillar is discussed in courses focusing on the academic, social, language, and behavioral needs of all children. This Pillar is assessed with case studies, lesson or unit plans, and descriptive commentaries. Pillar of Practice 3. Pedagogy/Instruction. Candidates meet the CREDE Standards (Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence Standards for Effective Pedagogy and Instruction from the University of California Berkley and University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa) for instructional practice. Candidates use developmentally appropriate planning and contextualize teaching in students’ existing experiences in home, community, and school. This Pillar is discussed in courses that require candidates to create lesson or unit plans, discuss modifications that might be necessary, discuss how students might react to particular strategies, and discuss how teachers might assess particular children. This Pillar is assessed when using candidates’ lesson or unit plans, teaching evaluations. Pillar of Practice 5. Management of classrooms and individuals Candidates will have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to organize the classroom so that teaching and learning are productive, purposeful, efficient, and effective. This Pillar is discussed in courses when candidates discuss classroom management strategies seen in a video, in a hypothetical situation, or witnessed in a clinical site. This Pillar is assessed when using candidates’ lesson or unit plans, teaching evaluations. R2T uses the capstone edTPA to show a clear connection with NCATE Standard 4. The edTPA, a nationally scored performance assessment modeled after the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, is a graduation requirement. Nationally trained scorers from other states assess our candidates’ teaching skills. The edTPA is a performance assessment that uses materials from actual teaching practice, including lesson plans, student work and an unedited video of a teacher candidate leading instruction. As preparation for this, candidates must plan culturally responsive lessons, instructional materials, and assessments that meet all of the needs of all learners in the classrooms in which they complete each semester’s clinical work or course assignments. The edTPA requires that candidates design, implement, and evaluate lessons taught to respective K-12 children. The edTPA specifically asks candidates to plan lessons to meet the needs of those children who are functioning above, at, and below the typically developing academic levels as well as the needs of English Language Learners and those with other exceptionalities; thus teacher candidates receive experience working with diverse students. Candidates consider the cultural and lived experiences of the children when selecting materials, teaching strategies and assessments. Faculty members in earlier coursework provide classroom experiences and tasks designed so candidates acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Experiences required for all candidates include working with diverse populations, including higher education and P–12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P–12 schools. Assessment data indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. (Exhibits 4.4.d.1-3)


DISPOSITIONS EPP teacher licensure candidates are expected to show professional dispositions in their work with students. Several of the 16 COE Dispositions clearly relate to diversity. They are: (1) Promoting social justice; (2) Providing equitable learning opportunities for all students; (3) Promoting achievement of students at all levels; (4) Recognizing students’ unique prior knowledge life experiences and interests as part of the context for student learning; (8) Understanding and involving a wide variety of resources in the school, family, culture, and community to facilitate student learning; (9) Seeking out, developing, and implementing the most appropriate methods to meet the diverse learning needs of the students; (10) Developing students’ skills as problem-solvers as they progress toward becoming independent, self-directed learners; and (11) Using effective planning and organization as tools in maximizing the time available for instruction and learning (Exhibit 3.4.f.5). All EPP teacher candidates are introduced to the professional dispositions and assessment policies prior to admission to the TEP. At the time of admission to the TEP candidates are required to indicate by their signature that they read and understand the dispositions outcomes and policies. At present, these dispositions are assessed informally but no record is kept as to student success, despite a pilot attempt that was met with reluctance by faculty members to formally assess these. By default, all candidates are assumed to be able to demonstrate appropriate dispositions unless a problem is noted by a faculty member or clinical supervisor/teacher. Program faculty members or either Director in the Office of Student Teaching and Student Support Services refer to the dispositions list when a candidate presents problems either in the classroom or during field work. A faculty member on campus or in the field who notices a problem relative to a candidate’s disposition files a disposition form (Exhibit 3.4.f.8-9) and discusses it with the candidate. It is then given to the Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services. From there the candidate may be interviewed by the directors and a corrective action plan written. If serious consequences are warranted, the candidate may be discouraged from continuing in or expelled from the program. A new COE Assessment System Review Committee will begin in Fall 2015. This committee will be composed of the Director of Assessment and representative program/department faculty members who will meet at least once per semester. Members will review rubrics for robustness, validity, and correlation with relevant standards and will work to develop and standardize assessments (Diversity and Disposition Standards) to be used across all programs and mechanisms for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data (Exhibit 2.4.d.5). Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related

to this standard.

SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI Knowledge about Diversity Faculty members will continue to stress the need to meet the needs of all learners through course textbooks and materials chosen, lectures, modeling, course requirements, and class activities.


An initiative currently scheduled to begin Fall 2015 will occur during the Junior Year in the BSED programs. We do not have an official name for this year-long companion to the Senior Year Residency I and II. Candidates will be placed in settings distinctly identified as urban for 1-2 days per week during both Junior semesters. Candidates will work with 1-2 mentor teachers while simultaneously taking coursework focusing on urban learners, managing student behavior, assessing all students, lesson planning and literacy instruction. Course requirements will overlap in that some projects in the clinical placement will have their individual components submitted to professors of different but concurrent courses. By contrast, Residency I and II placements occur in urban, suburban and rural settings. Components of this initiative were actually part of the original R2T Plan but were not implemented by any of the TBR schools. Dispositions As mentioned, the new COE Assessment System Review Committee will be charged with developing a mechanism to assess candidates’ knowledge about diversity as it relates to planning, instructing and assessing P-12 children and assessing candidate dispositions. Film Series The film series will meet some of the goals of the U of M’s Diversity Plan. This will be widely publicized and open to all university students, staff and faculty to raise awareness of specific issues. A discussion afterward will attempt to help participants understand a given set of issues from various perspectives. It is not possible to assess the impact of a given film on teacher candidates’ future behavior or knowledge, or the TI. Rather we anticipate favorable, if not measurable, results in terms of attitude, awareness, and collegiality. SUMMARY The TI allows candidates to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to dispositions and diversity. Candidates develop proficiencies related to diversity (i.e., social, economic, ethnic, racial, academic ability, physical ability). In addition, teacher candidates have integrated learning experiences; connect theory with practice; and collaborate with professional, paraprofessional, and fellow candidates during early coursework and/or field experiences. Today’s classrooms are very diverse; thus, teacher candidates are able to plan successful lessons for diverse students, teach using a variety of effective strategies, and collaborate with a range of individuals. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. Exhibits

4.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of diversity, if TI is related to this standard

4.4.a.1 4.4.a.2

Screenshot of Film Series Guides Introduction to the Film Series on Social Justice




4.4.c Changes in curriculum components and experiences that address diversity proficiencies, if any

4.4.c.1 4.4.c.2 4.4.c.3 4.4.c.4

Diversity Experience of Candidates U of M Diversity Plan Syllabus for LDPS7330 Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and American Education Syllabus for PETE 3308 Exceptional Learners in Physical Education

4.4.d Assessment instruments, scoring guides, and data related to candidates meeting diversity proficiencies, including impact on student learning (These assessments may be included in program review documents or the exhibits for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)

4.4.d.1 4.4.d.2 4.4.d.3

Candidate Knowledge Skills & Dispositions - Diversity F12-F14 SP13-SP14 Diversity Means Grade Distributions PETE 3308 and LDPS 7330

4.4.e Data table on faculty demographics

4.4.e Appendix A Data table of faculty demographics

4.4.f Data table on candidates demographics

4.4.f.1 Appendix B Diversity of Candidates in Professional Education

4.4.g Data table on demographics of P-12 students in schools used for clinical practice

4.4.g.1 Appendix C Diversity of Students in Clinical Practices


Standard 5 -Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

5.1 - What are the significant changes in how the EPP ensures that its professional

education faculty contributes to the preparation of effective educators through scholarship,

service, teaching, collaboration and assessment of their performance?

Changes were made in how the EPP ensures professional faculty members contribute to the preparation of effective educators through scholarship, service, teaching, collaboration, and assessment. The U of M created and COE adopted a new workload policy (Exhibit 6.4.f.1).The revised workload policy provides flexibility for faculty and administrators in negotiating faculty workload in keeping with the faculty member’s expertise and interests and overall departmental needs. QUALIFICATIONS All EPP faculty members must have either an earned doctorate, other terminal degree in their field, or exceptional expertise and contemporary professional experiences in appropriate settings (Exhibit 5.4.c.1). All Clinical Faculty, Instructors, and Master Clinicians are licensed in the field they teach or supervise and hold at minimum a master’s degree with exceptional experience and expertise in their assigned teaching field. All P-12 faculty members meet the requirements of TN Standards and Licensure Guidelines and additional EPP requirements (Exhibit 5.4.d.1). Assessment of Performance Department Chairs and the COE Dean evaluate each faculty member annually on the quality of their teaching, scholarship, and service. The new annual online evaluation mechanism for which printed information is provided (Exhibit 5.4.f.2) is available through the online portal and provides better differentiation among varying faculty roles. A required element of the evaluation process is the results of the new Student Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness (SETE) for on-campus and online courses. SETE results consistently indicate that our candidates perceive their instructors to be competent and exceptional teachers (Exhibits 5.4.f.4-5). The new form is more relevant to professor needs than the older one. The Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL) faculty members may opt, or be required by the chair, to have peer evaluations of their teaching (Exhibit 5.4.f.6). This new process was developed by an ICL committee and vetted by the department. The annual faculty evaluation process structures opportunities for faculty and chairs to discuss on-going needs for professional development. ICL also requires two additional documents for annual review: (a) faculty workload request for the upcoming year; and (b) self-evaluation rubric. The ICL Faculty Workload Request is not evaluative, but helps the chair plan the coming academic year. (Exhibits 5.4.f.3,7-8). A formalized third-year peer performance review ensures tenure-track faculty members are making progress (Exhibit 5.4.f.1). The EPP and the U of M acknowledge and reward faculty for outstanding achievement in teaching, service, and scholarship with annual recognition events. PERFORMANCE


Scholarship Tenured and tenure-track faculty members are expected to demonstrate a commitment to scholarship (Exhibits 5.4.e.1a-b,4). Scholarship is defined as a discipline-based or multidisciplinary activity that advances knowledge and learning by producing new ideas and understanding. “Engaged Scholarship” is new and now recognized by the U of M as a rewarded form of scholarship. This collaborative process involves community members in all aspects of the research project from designing the project through final or culminating peer evaluation (Exhibit 5.4.e.3). Scholarship is not required for performance review of Clinical Faculty or Instructors, although many of these faculty members are actively involved in scholarship either individually or collaboratively. COE clinical faculty and full-time instructors complete the same evaluation documents as tenured and tenure-track faculty. EPP faculty publish regularly in disciplinary journals such as: Educational Leadership, Young

Children, Childhood Education, Journal of School Counseling, Journal of Science Education,

The Reading Teacher, Theory into Practice, Journal of Individual Psychology, and Journal of

Teacher Education. Faculty also present scholarly research at annual meetings of professional associations such as the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, American

Educational Research Association, American Counseling Association, Association for Counselor

Education, Council for Exceptional Children, National Association for Education of Young

Children, and the National Association for Multicultural Education. EPP faculty members are also engaged in significant grant development in service to the teachers, students, and families in the region as well as contributing to faculty scholarship. In FY 2013, faculty generated more than $7.3 million in sponsored program funding (Exhibit 5.4.e.2).

Service Faculty members are increasingly active and serve as editors, reviewers, conference presenters, board members, or executive members of professional organizations. Exhibit 5.4.e.4 notes the professional organizations of faculty members. Faculty members provide service to the university, college, school, and communities in ways that are consistent with the institution’s mission. EPP members serve on all major university committees. Recently, EPP faculty members chaired/served on the university’s Institutional Review Board and served as President of the Faculty Senate. Faculty service to the profession at the state, regional, national and international levels includes editing and reviewing professional journals and chairing professional committees, special interest groups, and sub-committees within their disciplines. Service to the community is extensive as evidenced by the many collaborative partnerships with our P-12 schools. Faculty service to the college, department and program areas is also extensive as every member participates in initiatives to improve teaching, candidate learning, and the preparation of all educators to influence P-12 learners. Teaching An important change concerns faculty members’ increased focus on modeling best professional practices relative to instruction, assessment, and technology integration. They have an in-depth understanding of their fields and integrate their content knowledge with a variety of instructional practices to assist candidate learning. Faculty members’ teaching includes interactions with our


candidates, reflects appropriate professional standards, and integrates diversity and technology

into their teaching (Exhibit 5.4.c.2). DEVELOPMENT Another significant change is the increased support for professional development in critical areas. With the establishment of Ready2Teach (R2T), faculty development activities have engaged additional faculty in common activities related to this initiative (Exhibits 5.4.g.1a-b). A major source of formal faculty development activities is the Office of Faculty and Staff Development which focuses on the three major commitments noted in the conceptual framework: (a) diverse communities, (b) effective practice, and (c) leadership. Lead by an Assistant Dean with input from an advisory committee that includes a staff representative and representatives from each department in COE, this office administers focus groups and surveys allowing faculty members to indicate their professional development needs. Some of the workshops conducted related to the TI include: (a) Problem Based Learning;(b) LiveText; Instructional Mentoring; (c) Coaching & Observation Strategies; (d) Analysis of Student Work; (e) Differentiation; (f) Lesson Planning; (g) Setting Professional Goals; (h) Mentoring for Equity; (i) Designing & Presenting Professional Development; and other topics related to the use of technology in the classroom. SUMMARY Changes were made in the way that faculty view scholarship and in how faculty members are evaluated. ICL has additional evaluation requirements. Faculty members are more cognizant of advances in instruction, assessment, and technology integration which they model for students. Finally, a revised workload policy requires the same level of commitment of members of a given classification. 5.2 - Summarize activities and assessments that demonstrate correction of any areas for


N/A

5.3 - Transformation Initiative



The EPP at the U of M implemented the R2T TI (Exhibit 5.4.a.1) which has supported several initiatives for which faculty professional development opportunities have been provided (Exhibits 5.4.g.1a-e, 2). The R2T Proposal is on our AIMS Home Page. Faculty needs are considered as faculty development activities are planned and delivered. Some of the changes made related to the R2T TI include: (a) better awareness and implementation of Common Core; (b) using Problem-Based Learning; (c) edTPA local scoring; (d) the TEAM and TEM (state approved P-12 teacher evaluation models) evaluations; (e) Co-Teaching; (f) New Teacher Center (NTC) Induction and Mentoring model; (g) the use of LiveText; (h) increasing community partnerships and (i) technology supports. Each of these is discussed below in more detail. Common Core


More than 25 faculty from the COE and the College Arts and Sciences jointly participated in statewide Common Core training with the purpose of weaving Common Core content into the teacher education methods courses and arts and sciences content courses. U of M faculty members are currently more aware of and incorporate Common Core State Standards language in courses. Connections to content or process found in these standards are made more prominent in education methods courses and are articulated in the syllabi. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) U of M faculty members participated in the initial Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) efforts to implement the PBL process. The EPP established writing teams who participated in statewide PBL training and then wrote several PBL scenarios for program implementation. Intensive PBL activities were initiated in courses during Pre-Residency and Residency I and II semesters. A PBL database was created requiring extensive cross-campus development activities. Additionally, representatives from universities and partner schools receive ongoing intensive training in the effective implementation of PBL. Specifically, University faculty incorporate PBL through case studies and short scenarios designed to elicit small group discussions. edTPA Local Scoring Before the edTPA was scored by Pearson beginning in 2012, representative faculty members received scorer training from Stanford University faculty. Our faculty members were then allowed to offer professional development training to other COE faculty members and faculty members from our school partners to locally score edTPA portfolios. This local training was a sponsored professional development event for which attending P-12 teachers received professional development credits recognized by their districts for the 2-day event. Undergraduate student edTPA portfolios were scored locally in Spring and Fall 2011. Similar training was conducted in Fall 2014 in anticipation of scoring graduate edTPA portfolios in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015. Beginning Spring 2016, graduate edTPA portfolios will also be sent to Pearson for scoring. TEAM (Teacher Education Acceleration Model) / TEM (Teacher Evaluation Model) The TEAM teacher evaluation model is used by partner schools inside and outside of Shelby County Schools while the TEM is used in Memphis and Shelby County Schools. Candidates who complete their residencies in these schools are evaluated with a pre-service evaluation tool that has been modified to reflect the rubrics included in these models. Teacher education faculty members from both COE and the College of Arts and Sciences attended TEAM/TEM training sessions. PreService Instructive Mentors (PIMs) for our teacher education candidates participated in training sessions conducted by their respective school districts. Co-Teaching Model The U of M embraces the co-teaching model for use with Residency I-II candidates. This model provides the PIMs and the teacher candidate opportunities to work collaboratively by sharing classroom management, planning, organization, implementation and assessment of instruction. The PIMs and teacher candidates participated in a common training session conducted by the office of Teacher Education. (Exhibit 3.4.d.1) New Teacher Center Induction and Mentoring Model (NTC)


The NTC at the U of M provides regional training for U of M teacher education faculty, Arts and Sciences faculty, and PIMs from partner schools. The training designed for mentoring beginning teachers is adapted for mentoring pre-service candidates, as well (Exhibit 5.4.g.2). The NTC mentor training also complements both the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and the Teacher Effectiveness Model (TEM) state approved teacher evaluation systems. LiveText In 2012, Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL) adopted this software to manage assessment system data collected on candidate performance. Approximately 60 full- and part-time faculty members were initially trained to use the software. The use of Live Text is now required for all professional education courses in ICL and relies on rubrics designed specifically for assessments in each course. This has caused program faculty to be more attentive to the assessments they use and how those assessments are scored. The rubrics are aligned with professional, state, and university standards; thus, accountability to standards moves to the forefront. Mary Ransdell will conduct LiveText training for School Counseling faculty members and students in the near future as that program adopts the software as a management tool. Community Connections Several collaborations have emerged or became stronger as a result of the TI. Partnerships with Tipton County Schools, Jackson-Madison County Schools and Shelby County Schools have become stronger. The current school year lists 75 partner schools who host candidates. (Exhibit

3.4.a.2). This number will increase as the proposed pilot junior year initiative begins. This full-year companion to the BSED Residency I-II will place junior year candidates in designated urban schools with faculty members who will mentor our candidates.

Technology Support Technology support for candidates has included: (a) video cameras and associated equipment

provided for use while completing their video portion of their edTPA; (b) Smart Boards placed

in classrooms used by Residency I courses; and (c) a classroom set of iPads. These resources,

along with existing classroom technology, help teacher candidates prepare to teach P-12 children

using up-to-date technology that is currently available in many clinical site classrooms. With

each additional resource, arrangements were made so that formal and informal professional

development was offered for faculty members who required it.

Although not specifically targeting the TI, a newly acquired series of films offers all teacher candidates as well as the faculty who teach them the opportunity to learn about various cultures and perspectives. The U of M’s Diversity Plan focuses on social justice under the heading of Curriculum and Scholarship. Currently several full-length films are available in the library for faculty to check out and use with classes offered on campus only. The COE Faculty Development Committee provides teacher guides and lesson plans for these (Exhibit 4.4.a.1-2). Films include MR. HOLLAND’S OPUS (Hollywood Pictures, 1995), TO SIR: WITH LOVE (Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1967) and WAITING FOR SUPERMAN (Electric Kinney Films, 2010). Several professors have already used these in their courses and provided positive feedback.


Additionally, relative to professional development of faculty, the Faculty Development Committee has discussed plans for a FRIDAY FILM FESTIVAL open to all FACULTY AND STUDENTS beginning in Fall 2015 to screen and discuss these and other relevant films. A guided discussion would be held after each screening to relate the film to current issues and topics. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related

to this standard.

SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI The TBR approved a Fee Differential of $25 per credit hour for all 3000-4000 level baccalaureate education courses and all post-baccalaureate 5000 - 7000 level education courses that are part of an initial teacher licensure program. This fee revenue (Exhibit 6.4.e.1-2) is being used to provide the following: (a) increased stipends for public school mentor teachers, (b) financial support for the newly redesigned education program components for teacher candidates and faculty professional development, (c) financial support for marketing and recruiting of highly qualified candidates for R2T (d) financial resources to hire and retain Master Clinicians, and (e) financial resources for updating equipment and software needed by R2T. Also included is a significant increase in reimbursement for travel expenses to and from local school residency sites. These funds, along with other college and departmental resources will enable us to provide valuable support for faculty as we sustain and enhance the full implementation of the TI. The EPP consistently supports faculty engagement in professional development related to the TI to improving their skills in teaching, service, and research, through attendance at professional conferences, seminars and other on-campus sessions designed for specific groups of professionals. Some of these topics include: Common Core standards, edTPA, co-teaching model, and the TEAM teacher evaluation process among others. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. Exhibits

5.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of faculty qualifications, if TI is related to this standard

5.4.a.1 5.4.a.2

Ready to Teach (R2T) at the U of M Ready2Teach Initiative NCATE Proposal FINAL



5.4.c Data table on faculty qualifications

5.4.c.1 5.4.c.2

Appendix D Data Table of Faculty Qualifications Faculty Best Practices


5.4.d Licensure information on school/clinical instructors/faculty (e.g., cooperating/mentor teachers, internships supervisors, etc.) practice

5.4.d.1 Selection Criteria for Mentor Teachers & Clinical Faculty

5.4.e Samples of instructors/faculty scholarly activities

5.4.e.1a 5.4.e.1b 5.4.e.2 5.4.e.3 5.4.e.4

Weaver Syllabus for IDT 3600 Technology in the Classroom Martindale Publications and Presentations Funded Grants and Contracts Engaged Scholarship as Defined in the 2014 U of M Faculty Handbook Faculty Professional Associations

5.4.f Sample forms for instructors/faculty evaluation and summaries of the results

5.4.f.1 5.4.f.2 5.4.f.3a 5.4.f.3.b 5.4.f.3.c 5.4.f.3.d 5.4.f.4 5.4.f.5 5.4.f.6 5.4.f.7 5.4.f.8

Mid-Tenure Review from 2014 Faculty Handbook U of M Online Faculty Evaluation Martindale Evaluation Martindale ICL Faculty Self-Evaluation Weaver Evaluation Weaver ICL Faculty Self-Evaluation Student Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness - SETE Summary of SETE for COE ICL Peer Evaluation ICL Faculty Workload Request ICL Faculty Self-Evaluation Rubric

5.4.g Description of opportunities for professional development

5.4.g.1a 5.4.g.1b 5.4.g.1c 5.4.g.1d 5.4.g.1e 5.4.g.2

January – December 2011 Professional Development January – December 2012 Professional Development 2012-2013 Professional Development Activities 2013-2014 Professional Development Activities 2014-2015 Professional Development Activities Sample handout for Mentor Workshop


6. Standard 6. The EPP has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and

resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to

meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

6.1 What are the significant changes in how the unit’s governance system and resources

contribute to adequately prepare candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional

standards?

GOVERNANCE SYSTEM Shortly after the 2008 NCATE visit Dean Ric Hovda took a deanship in another state. After a national search, Donald Wagner was appointed Dean until 2014. In Fall 2013 it was announced that the College of Education (COE) would undergo restructuring as a result of decisions made by the then Interim President Martin and late Provost Faudree. As part of this process, Dean Donald Wagner was asked to oversee the potential formation of a new college. In May 2014 former Associate Dean for Administration & Graduate Studies, Ernest A. Rakow, was appointed Interim Dean. At the time of this writing, the only fully approved structural change is the return of the name of the college to its former name, College of Education (COE), effective July 1, 2015. Additional proposed changes are in the approval process. A current organizational chart is provided (Exhibit 6.4.c.1).

The current Dean’s Advisory Committee (Exhibit 6.4.c.2) consists of the dean, assistant dean, director of teacher education & student support services and departmental chairs who consider the major accomplishments and discuss future overall direction. The program specific advisory committees, consisting of program faculty and relevant external stakeholders, and located in each department or program area consider the needs of the program, the direction of the program, and the expected competencies of program completers. It was noted during the creation of this document that a formalized review mechanism for the assessment system does not exist currently. This is an area to be addressed by a committee beginning in Fall 2015. This Assessment System Review Committee will be composed of the Director of Assessment and faculty from each of the departments and will meet at least once per semester. Members will review rubrics for robustness, validity, and correlation with relevant standards. The committee will also work together to develop and standardize assessments (Diversity and Disposition Standards) to be used across all programs and mechanisms for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data. They would also review data from program areas and report to the department chairs and the college dean. (Exhibit 2.4.d.5) RESOURCES The Dean’s Office provides money and organizational support for faculty professional development for topics such as: (a) creating online or hybrid courses because some graduate programs are completely online; (b) information for U of M faculty members about local P-12 teacher evaluation tools called Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) and Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM); (c) Common Core State Standards and their implications for higher education; (d) the P-12 Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS); (e) Problem-Based Learning; (f) mentoring teacher candidates; and (g) SmartBoard® technology. In addition, a staff member from the college IT department was given part-time office space within


the COE’s physical space for one year to be available to meet with faculty to help them with online or hybrid course demands. Graduate Assistants (GA’s) have taken over this task and currently assist faculty members with the technicalities of online or hybrid courses. The university’s faculty workload policy was revised and each college was allowed to tweak the details to meet the needs of that particular college. The COE Workload Policy and summary of faculty workloads are included (Exhibits 6.4.f.1-2). The U of M provides office space and desktop computers for all faculty members with replacements on a rotating basis. Faculty members’ computers are updated as machines are received from the student computer labs. These labs are regularly updated with new machines using student Technology Access Fee (TAF) monies; thus, university students have the most up-to-date machines. The U of M provides site licenses for the most frequently used software. The individual college departments provide access to typical office support machinery (i.e., printers or fax machines). Most lecture type classrooms in the Ball Education Building, the Emma Roan Fieldhouse and the Varnell-Jones Building (Lambuth Campus, Jackson, TN) are equipped with a ceiling mounted LCD projector connected to a computer. In addition, eight rooms in Ball Hall (BH 107, 109, 111, 205, 209, 310, 314, and 405) are equipped with SmartBoard® technology. The classrooms at the Millington Center (Millington, TN) and the Collierville Center (Collierville, TN) are either “smart classrooms” or have rolling “smart carts”. One room at the Millington Center, the Collierville Center, and the Varnell-Jones Building (Lambuth Campus, Jackson, TN) have SmartBoard ® technology. When education classes are scheduled, most faculty members insist upon use of a “smart” classroom. SmartBoard ® technology is routinely used in many local P-12 schools so candidates have early and frequent exposure, and opportunities to practice using it in ways consistent with local P-12 school settings. Individual professors or programs have used grant money to purchase IPads and other technology for uses associated with their courses. Technology in the classrooms has allowed changes in the way some field experiences are conducted. Some faculty members occasionally use virtual field experiences to ensure that all teacher candidates in a course view specific techniques; they can discuss the commonly viewed classroom techniques for deeper understanding. The Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services personnel regularly share websites using Common Core-based lesson plans, virtual classrooms, and research-based techniques with faculty members. Updated candidate admission policies (Exhibit 6.4.d.1) provide candidates with robust academic credentials. These are routinely analyzed in light of current admission and retention data and national trends or requirements. COE recruitment practices are twofold. Many follow the traditional person-to-person format and other newer formats feature an electronic presence via social media. Faculty members are encouraged to engage in both formats in order to help publicize particular events or programs in which they are involved (Exhibit 6.4.d.2). The printing of some flyers has been on hold due to the recently approved change in the college name, as explained earlier.


The COE budget is in line with that of other colleges at the U of M with respect to expenses with the COE somewhat lagging in income. This is similar to colleges of education across the country (Exhibit 6.4.e.3). SUMMARY The College of Education will undergo a number of organizational changes in the next few years. Suffice it to say that the COE Administration actively supports the work of the individual programs to prepare candidates to meet professional, state and institutional standards.

6.2 Summarize activities and assessments that demonstrate correction of any areas for


No areas for improvement were noted in the last report.

6.3 Transformation Initiative



The U of M President, Dr. M. David Rudd supports the TI by his leadership and authority. COE Interim Dean, Ernest Rakow, and Assistant Dean, Dr. Vivian Morris, sustain the TI by their continuous authority, support through technology acquisition, collaboration, leadership, and budgetary considerations. The Director of Teacher Education, Dr. Sutton Flynt, supports the implementation of the TI through leadership in the development of Ready2Teach (R2T) and the incorporation of the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA), and through the development and maintenance of the local education authority (LEA) partnerships. The chairs from the Departments of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL), Dr. Deborah Lowther (retiring summer 2015), and Health and Sport Sciences (HSS), Dr. Richard Bloomer, support the TI through their collaboration, leadership, and budgetary considerations relative to program faculty members. Teacher candidates whose content area is Art, Music, Dance, Theater or English as a Second Language must come through the COE R2T Program after completing any content requirements in either the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Communications & Fine Arts. Implementing the TI required changes and increased coordination between the pedagogical faculty in the College of Education and content faculty in College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Communications & Fine Arts. The TI required personnel support from local school faculty and professional development relative to increased field experiences and clinical supervision. Closer and more frequent collaborations between faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Communications & Fine Arts and with the LEAs continue to evolve. The TI is impacted by the budgetary needs related to successful planning and implementing the clinical aspects. In Spring 2009 the six Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) University Presidents agreed with the TBR staff to begin assessing each TBR institution, based on its relative size, to support the work of what was then called the Teacher Education Redesign (now known as R2T).


The Teacher Education Redesign projects were funded for three years as follows: 2009-2010; 2010-2011; 2011-2012. Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing progress on the TI in this area, if TI is related to this standard. SUSTAINING AND ENHANCING PROGRESS ON THE TI In Spring 2012, the TBR universities, with support of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, submitted a jointly authored Differential Fee request to the Board of Regents for their consideration. The proposed $25 per credit hour, or audit hour, for all 3000-4000 level undergraduate education and all 5000-7000 level graduate course required for teacher candidates following their admission to the Teacher Education Program. The revenues from these fees were explicitly designated to support the R2T Program in the following areas: (a) stipends for public school mentor teachers; (b) support for the newly redesigned education program components for teacher candidates (including $300 for Pearson contract scorers to score each of the edTPA portfolios) and faculty professional development; (c) support for marketing and recruiting of highly qualified candidates for R2T; (d) financial resources to hire and retain Master Clinicians; and (e) financial resources for updating equipment (i.e., cameras, tripods, memory cards) and software needed by R2T. In addition, there would be a significant increase in expenses for faculty travel to and from local school residency sites. The TBR approved the proposal in March 2012 and it went into effect in Fall 2012. Each institution identified the applicable courses (initial programs only) and an account was established to separate this revenue from other revenue streams (Exhibits 6.4.e.1-2). As faculty are hired to teach courses, R2T is explained to them as well as any necessary training in the assessments or assignments used with candidates so that the new faculty member can have the greatest positive impact on teacher candidate and eventual P-12 student learning. Support personnel in the Office of Teacher Education and Candidate Support Services frequently communicate with faculty to ensure that appropriate clinical placements are made through proper channels. The Director of Teacher Education and Associate Director of Teacher Education spend an enormous amount of time visiting each LEA school site and discussing the R2T’ goals and benefits with the principals and PIMs well in advance of placing candidates in the building. Strong partnerships currently exist with local districts and more are established as interested administrators contact the U of M. A partial list of schools in one county is shown in Exhibit

3.4.a.2. As we move from NCATE Legacy to CAEP, it is understood that assessments, rubrics, and data need careful attention. A cycle of assessment creation, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, assessment revising will be necessary. Plans are being formulated by the Director of Assessment who will work with the new Dean and COE department faculty members to transition smoothly to the new standards and associated requirements. Exhibits


6.4.a Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of unit leadership and resources, if TI is related to this standard.

6.4.a Evidence of TI Related changes to EPP Leadership and Resources



6.4.c Organizational chart and/or description of the EPP governance structure

6.4.c.1 6.4.c.2

Organizational chart with Entities that Directly Impact the College Dean’s Advisory Council

6.4.d Candidate recruitment and admission policies

6.4.d.1 6.4.d.2

Candidate Admission Policies Candidate Recruitment Practices

6.4.e EPP budget, with provisions for assessment, technology, and professional development and in comparison to schools or college with clinical components on campus, if applicable, or similar EPPs at other campuses

6.4.e.1 6.4.e.2 6.4.e.3

TBR R2T Differential Maintenance Fee Fees Assessed in Teacher Education Courses Budget Comparison

6.4.f Faculty workload policies and summaries of faculty workloads

6.4.f.1 6.4.f.2

COE Faculty Workload Policies Summary of COE Faculty Workloads