Notes from CAEP: 

Making a case: In Standard 1, the provider makes the case for candidate competencies at the point reached by exit from the program through data from common assessments. The EPP argues that candidates prepared in initial programs can effectively engage with all P-12 students and are competent in the four InTASC categories-the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility-and that they are prepared in their specialty/licensure area (components 1.1 and 1.3). Candidates prepared in advanced programs apply their knowledge and skills so that learning and development opportunities for P-12 students are enhanced through data literacy, use of research, data analysis and evidence, collaborations with colleagues and community, appropriate use of technology for the candidate's field, and applications of professional dispositions, laws, and policies.

The provider demonstrates that candidates are able to apply the necessary knowledge and skills for success in their own professional P-12 practice, including use of research and evidence (component 1.2), a commitment to challenging college- and career-ready level standards for all their students (component 1.4), and appropriate use of technology in instruction (component 1.5).

Initial candidates' abilities to teach diverse students effectively, adapting their repertoire of skills as needed, is an overarching theme for Standard 1. For advanced preparation candidates, the principal focus is professional knowledge and skills that equip them to support needs of diverse P-12 student learners through their specialty field.

The guiding questions for initial and advanced preparation may help focus the selection of evidence and the EPP inquiry of its message:

How do candidates:

• demonstrate an understanding of the 10 in InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning; content; instructional practices; and professional responsibility?
• use research and evidence to measure their P-12 students' progress and their own professional practices?
• apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcomes assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Association (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g. National Association of Schools of Music- NASM)?
• demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college-and career ready standards (e.g. Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness-Certification, Common Core Standards)?
• apply technology standards as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practices?
• ensure that candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession?

  EPP should reflect on:

• STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES-What strengths and areas of challenge have you discovered about candidate content and pedagogical knowledge and its applications as you analyzed and compared the results of your disaggregated data by program and by demographics? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement?
• TRENDS-What trends have emerged as you compared program and demographic data about candidate content and pedagogical knowledge and its applications across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement?
• IMPLICATIONS-What implications can you draw or conclusions can you reach across evidence sources about candidate content and pedagogical knowledge and its applications? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data-driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation?

Throughout the lens of CAEP standard 1:  Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, the MU EPP reflects consistently on its program with a focus on the following questions:

1. Do candidates adequately demonstrate progression in understanding the four InTASC categories:the learner and learning; content; instructional practices; and professional responsibility? (CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)
2. Do MU program completers demonstrate proficient content knowledge and understanding of engaging pedagogy (e.g., inquiry) and ongoing, standards-aligned assessment to ensure K-12 students' mastery of rigorous academic standards?(CAEP 1.1, 1.4, 1.5,)
3. Do MU program completers intentionally design technology infused, student-centered learning experiences inclusive of all students with the goal of towards deepening understanding of content and skills of students? (CAEP 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)
4. Do Manchester University program completers professionally and effectively use evidence and peer-reviewed research to make pedagogical decisions which impact student learning and improves their own professional understanding of teaching? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)

Summary Statement:

As candidates progress through the Manchester University EPP, they must develop deep comprehension of and the ability to apply content knowledge and pedagogy.  Several evidence packets support the EPP’s analysis of CAEP Standard 1.  These include the Danielson, Candidate Admission and Completion (CRC), SPA Reports, and Employer and Completer Satisfaction (ECS) packets.  Reviewers will see corresponding evidence packet titles in parenthesis where appropriate.

Standard 1.1 Candidates progress through a program in which the InTASC framework is intentionally supported; all required courses, key assessments, formal observation forms, and disposition rubrics reflect the ten InTASC standards.  With multiple measures, the EPP is confident in completers' understanding of four areas:  the learner and learning, content, instructional practices, and professional responsibility.  Table 1A provides the alignment between the InTASC standards and courses required of all majors, and it demonstrates the intentionality of the program to prepare candidates.  Because candidates must maintain a minimum of 2.5 GPA in overall and in their majors, the program ensures an adequate understanding of the InTASC standards as well as comprehension of content knowledge and pedagogy.

Besides required mastery of coursework, EPP assessments supporting the candidates' understanding of the learner and learning include the Danielson Framework to evaluate student teaching (Danielson packet), candidate performance on integrated unit plan which is included in the SCE:  Impact on Student Learning capstone project (SCE packet), both of which required candidates to differentiate lessons and measure impact on P-12 students' learning.  Additionally, GPA comparisons reflect candidates' progression through required coursework (CRC packet).

Candidates' content knowledge is expressed through assessments such as program admission criteria (CRC packet).  In accordance with the Indiana Rules for Educator Preparation and Accountability (REPA), candidates must obtain a minimum passing score on the CASA in reading, mathematics, and writing.  The CASA provides evidence of application of basic skills needed by educators.

Prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the EPP did not require the successful completion of content exams to student teach.  To assure clinic faculty of the candidates’ content knowledge, the EPP now requires candidates to pass the Pearson Content Areas Assessments to earn final approval for student teaching.  These content exams include the elementary education generalist which consists of four subtests:  reading and English language arts; mathematics; science, health, and physical education; and social studies and fine arts.  Secondary and all-grade teacher candidates must successfully pass the Content Area Assessment aligned with their content of study such as English Language Arts, mathematics, Social Studies- Historical Perspectives, etc. The EPP disaggregates test data based on licensure areas.  The Praxis II and Pearson Content Exam Table provides a summary of the pass rates for subject specific licensure tests, comparing MU candidates with scores from state averages (CRC packet). 

The EPP evaluates candidates' instructional practices through the development of curriculum and the appropriate teaching of content.  In the fall of 2016, the EPP moved from a holistic grading of candidates’ knowledge and skills during student teaching to the Danielson Framework to track criterion-specific skills; published research attests to the validity and reliability of the Danielson Framework.  While the EPP still uses the holistic evaluation tool to assign a student teaching grade, all supervising instructors and clinical faculty complete the Danielson framework for assessment purposes (Danielson packet).  This research-based evaluation tool and trained supervisors provide a more reliable approach to evaluating candidates' instructional practices.

Professional responsibility develops over the course of the program and is measured through dispositional rubrics developed by the EPP (Attachment CAEP 2A Candidate Profiles for Recommendation to Program).  Progression through the program requires candidates to demonstrate improvement, as they should demonstrate ratings of proficient or distinguished in the first five dispositions by the mid-way point of their sophomore year.  Clinical faculty also evaluate candidates' professional stance through an EPP developed evaluation form. Interviews with the DTE occur prior to admission to the program and again when the candidate seeks permission to student teach, and at these points, the DTE and candidate review feedback on the candidate's dispositions and create a remediation plan if it is needed (CRC packet).  The Checkpoint Matriculation Data table included in the Program Admission and Completion packet provides disaggregated data regarding candidates who begin the program versus those who finish the program.  The data is based on disposition rubrics (professional responsibility) as well as GPA and test scores (content knowledge).

Standard 1.2  While the MU EPP understands that only a few of the teacher candidates may enter the field of educational research, it believes all educators, whether they are kindergarten teachers or high school English teachers, must at minimum be good consumers of trends in pedagogy.  In addition, teacher candidates should be able to consider the relationship between the pedagogical decisions they make and the impact they have as educators on their students.  As a result, the most comprehensive use of research occurs during the candidates’ student teaching experience as they conduct an impact on student learning action research project which requires them to design a research-based, standards-driven unit plan to measure their students’ academic growth.  Not only do they investigate the peer-reviewed research-based pedagogy, but they also they write a literature review, teach the unit in their student teaching setting, and analyze collected data.  This capstone project builds upon the skills developed throughout the entirety of their program, but instead of designing a hypothetical unit plan, the unit is designed, taught, and analyzed in an authentic setting:  student teaching.  A rubric developed by the EPP is used to measure the impact on student learning capstone project (SCE packet) 

Education faculty infuse opportunities for candidates to read peer-reviewed research articles as well as use published and original research to deepen their understanding of pedagogy and the impact instruction has on student performance.  The following examples illustrate a variety of ways required courses support experiences with research and evidence to measure student progress. In EDUC 111 and EDUC 211, candidates explore teaching practices based on scientific research.  In EDUC 237, teacher candidates examine the different parts of a research article including the literature review and methodology.  They work to analyze the purpose of the research as well as the application of the study for a classroom teacher.  Since the last accreditation cycle in 2011, the EPP has introduced a new assessment course (EDUC 245) required of all teacher candidates.  In EDUC 245, candidates examine the construction, reliability, and validity of assessments. 

To prepare candidates for successful student teaching and completion of the SCE, in the fall of their junior year, candidates enroll in EDUC 362, a course in which candidates use research to support practices in a lesson, literature choices, strategy usage.  Their culminating project is a research-based action plan.  In the spring, junior candidates enroll in either EDUC 342 (secondary and all-grade candidates) or EDUC 340 (elementary candidates) which builds upon the foundation.  The final project is an integrated unit plan which incorporates peer-reviewed research to support pedagogical decisions, assessment selections, and adaptations/modifications (SCE packet).  This scaffolded experience has provided the program with increased confidence in candidates' content and pedagogical understanding.

Standard 1.3 To obtain an Indiana teaching license, candidates must successfully pass the Pearson content examination for their content area(s); they must also pass the appropriate Pearson pedagogy exam (CRC packet). As explained in Standard 1.1, the EPP now requires candidates to pass all content exams prior to student teaching.  Table 3 in the Candidate Recruitment and Completion (CRC) packet provides data regarding candidates' pass rate for all Pearson exams, both content and pedagogy.  While the program has only had the opportunity to collect one cycle of data, the initial impact was significant.  74 percent of the cohort either self-selected out or did not pass the content exams prior to student teaching. 

The EPP has collaborated with faculty within the disciplines to submit appropriate SPA reports for programs with more than five completers for the period of 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015.  Each program has submitted alignment of the content standards for its discipline’s professional organization such as the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).  To intentionally align programs with standards, each of the syllabi identify the content and pedagogical standards supported by course content (SPA Reports packet).   Besides the periodic review throughout the academic year, at the end of each academic year, the EPP holds a full day retreat to examine the scope and sequence of the content; additionally, it revisits the alignment of the courses to the InTASC, content standards for each SPA report, and CAEP standards.

Besides measuring candidates’ knowledge, the EPP also measures their ability to apply the knowledge and pedagogy.  During student teaching, candidates complete the Impact on Student Learning Project (SCE packet) which requires candidates to apply content and pedagogical knowledge in an authentic teaching experience.  They analyze their impact on student learning through the lens of pedagogical best practice, collecting data prior to the teaching of the unit as well as after the unit has concluded.  Using peer-reviewed research, they analyze the effectiveness of their teaching and make suggestions for future instruction. Two members of the EPP use an EPP-developed rubric to evaluate the capstone projects.

Clinical faculty and university supervisors observe teacher candidates during the student teaching experience and complete the content student observation tool, a discipline-specific rubric designed to evaluate the teacher candidate’s ability to effectively teach content (CRC packet).  Using the standards identified by the discipline-related professional organization, the EPP can determine application of specific content knowledge.

For the last three cycles of student teachers, the EPP has implemented the use of the Danielson Framework observation tool (Danielson packet). The Danielson provides both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor a valid and reliable tool for evaluating student teachers in multiple domains including content knowledge and pedagogy.  Through student teaching observations, the EPP documents the teacher candidates’ content and pedagogical understanding.

Since the implementation of CAEP accreditation in the state of Indiana, the Indiana Department of Education has collected employer survey data (ECS packet). While the return rate has been extremely low, with only 7 MU employers returning surveys, the IDOE has provided the EPP with employer satisfaction data.  Questions on the survey correspond with InTASC standards.

Standard 1.4  Throughout the teacher preparation program, the EPP scaffolds the development of lesson plans and unit plans focused on the Indiana state content standards.  First introduced in EDUC 245:  Educational Assessment, teacher candidates unpack the academic standards, create measurable learning objectives, and design appropriate and authentic assessments by which they would measure the objectives.  In the fall of their third year in the program, all teacher candidates enroll in EDUC 362:  Literacy and English Language Learners, a course which builds upon curriculum design and assessment related to the rigorous Indiana academic standards.   Teacher candidates not only design a standards-based lesson plan, but they must record the teaching of the lesson and then reflect on the process, self-evaluating the effectiveness of teaching the academic standards.  When they complete their junior interview with the Director of Teacher Education, the teacher candidates must reflect on their experience of designing lessons and assessments and teaching. 

Supported by their development in previous required courses, the teacher candidates create an integrated unit plan during their literacy class (EDUC 340:  Literacy Block or EDUC 342:  Literacy in the Content Area).  This unit plan requires teacher candidates to write a week to two-week unit plan which incorporates individual, standards-based lesson plans that focus on a research-based best practice.  The finished plan includes pre- and post-assessments, individual plans, and the supporting documents required to teach the unit.  Ultimately, it serves as the foundation for the SCE Impact on Student Learning capstone project completed the following year (SCE packet). 

As previously mentioned, the Indiana Department of Education recently began collecting employer survey data; despite the low return, the survey does hold great potential for providing feedback to the EPP. 

Standard 1.5 Question 14 on the employer survey specifically asks employers to evaluate the EPP’s completers’ levels of ability to design, implement, and assess learning experiences through technology standards (ECS packet).  Because Indiana does not have a statewide approach to integrating technology, administration’s perception of completers’ use of technology may vary.  It should be noted the EPP is taking strides to integrate technology throughout its program.  By using Google Hangout to connect with classrooms across the state and Twitter to chat with authors, the EPP introduces candidates to the integration of technology.

Based on feedback from the Teacher Advisory Council in the fall of 2017, the EPP created an e-learning assignment in the required literacy courses EDUC 340:  Literacy Block and EDUC 342:  Literacy in the Content Area; all teacher candidates take one of these courses.  Teacher candidates modify a lesson plan in their unit plan by requiring it in the e-Learning lesson plan format (SCE packet).  Supported by a completer of the Manchester University program, preservice teachers have a model for an e-learning format which couples nicely with the program’s lesson plan format.  Teacher candidates submit the same lesson plan, but in two formats:  face-to-face and e-learning.

Equally as important, for the past few years, the EPP has hosted tech summits each fall to provide teacher candidates with current best practices in incorporating technology into their classrooms.  Classroom teachers provide instruction through half-day professional development workshops required of all upperclassmen enrolled in education majors; these workshops provide authentic opportunities for teacher candidates to develop a deeper understanding of using technology to support K-12 students (SCE packet).

Summary Case for Meeting Standard 1:

Using multiple data points, the EPP has met CAEP standard 1 by measuring candidates' (1.1) understanding of the InTASC standards, (1.2) use of research and evidence to develop understanding of the teaching profession and to measure their impact on P-12 students' learning, (1.3) apply content and pedagogical knowledge, (1.4) demonstrate skills and commitment so that all P-12 students have access to standards, and (1.5) model and apply technology standards as they design, implement, and assess learning.  Throughout the analysis of the evidence, clear strengths and challenges emerged.

Evidence for CAEP Standard 1 is located in corresponding evidence packets, and summaries of key findings include the following:

Strengths and Challenges

Based on data collected through the SCE Impact on Student Learning capstone project (SCE packet), candidates adequately demonstrate progression in understanding the four InTASC categories:  the learner and learning; content; instructional practices; and professional responsibility (Q1) (CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).

SCE:  Due to the low numbers MU teaching program, trends are represented for candidates across all areas of licensure.  Additionally, the data presented reflect EPP feedback on the initial submission of the project; therefore, the trends provided on the initial SCE evaluation tend to be lower than the EPP would like. 

Candidates’ in the MU EPP have the following strengths: (A) Averages on criterion 8, Implications for Teaching and Professional Development (InTASC 2, 4, CAEP 2.3, 3.6), tend to be the highest (1.7/3.0); candidates consistently demonstrate the ability to analyze data, reflect on their impact on student growth, and make observations about their teaching and professional growth.  Accordingly, candidates must consider how they used data to drive instruction and make pedagogical decisions based on data collected from assessments aligned with learning objectives.

The MU EPP has identified the following challenges: (A) The EPP will pay close attention to the performance of Physical Education and Health candidates as their average scores tend to be lower than those of other disciplines.  The 2017 comparison shows the PE and Health candidates’ range between 9.83-10, but the other disciplines ranged between 13-17.  Because the Physical Education and Health program oversees their program, the EPP will continue to work with the PE/Health faculty to infuse knowledge and skills needed to successfully complete the SCE. 

Danielson Framework:  Analysis of the Danielson framework data, the SCE Impact on Student Learning capstone project, the content-specific student teaching rubric, and the Pearson content and pedagogy scores, MU program completers demonstrate proficient content knowledge and understanding of engaging pedagogy (e.g., inquiry) and ongoing, standards-aligned assessment to ensure K-12 students' mastery of rigorous academic standards (Q2).  (CAEP 1.1, 1.4, 1.5,)

The EPP recognizes MU program completers need additional opportunities to learn to intentionally design technology-infused, student-centered learning experiences inclusive of all students with the goal of deepening understanding of content and skills of students.  Of the criteria identified on the survey conducted by the EPP as well as the Indiana DOE, confidence in infusing curriculum with technology is an area in which candidates do not feel confident (Q3) (CAEP 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).

Reflecting on data collected for the SCE and the Danielson framework, MU program completers professionally and effectively use evidence and peer-reviewed research to make pedagogical decisions to impact student learning and to improve their own professional understanding of teaching (Q4) (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).  The EPP believes the implementation of the SCE and the Danielson Framework has increased the accountability of candidates.

Candidates’ in the MU EPP have the following strengths: (A) Overall performance of candidates tends to be relatively high.  All but three of the components indicate candidates are proficient in the four domains (1) Planning and Preparation; (2) Classroom Environment; (3) Instruction; and (4) Professional Responsibilities. (B) Similar to the information reflected in the employer satisfaction survey, candidates excel in relationships and recognize their professional responsibilities to P-12 students, parents, and colleagues.  In the category Danielson 2a:  creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport, candidates averaged 3.45/4.0.  In regards to Danielson 4E:  Growing and Developing Professionally and Danielson 4F:  Showing Professionalism, candidates averaged 3.3/4.0.  These three areas reflect the emphasis the EPP places on relationships, and because the candidates work closely with the four full-time faculty and Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator, they see these elements modeled.

Candidates’ in the MU EPP have the following challenges: (A) Candidates seem to struggle applying experiences regarding the development of assessments as they averaged only 2.88/4.0, a rating of basic, on Danielson 1f:  Designing Student Assessments; performance on Danielson 3d:  Using Assessment in Instruction was not much better with an average of 3.02/4.0, just above basic.  These scores reflect the feedback from employers on the IDOE survey (Employer and Completer Satisfaction packet).  The lowest score on this survey was on Q12, candidates’ ability to analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction.  The average was a 2.71/4.0, indicating employers disagree with the statement.

Candidate Recruitment and Completion:  The particular evidence included in the candidate Recruitment and Completion packet is the use of the Pearson CASA, content, and pedagogy exams required for progression through and completion of the MU teacher preparation program.  Additionally, Table 3 in the CRC packet demonstrates the number of candidates who were admitted to the program versus the number who actually completed the program.

According to the data, the MU EPP has the following strengths:

• Candidates who complete the program have demonstrated mastery of content knowledge in order to effectively teach.In 2017, nine of thirteen candidates originally admitted to the program were not given permission to student teach primarily because of failure to pass the content exams.This number may alarm stakeholders and the institution; however, the EPP believes this will lead to a stronger cohort of completers.Candidates demonstrating comprehension of content knowledge assure clinical faculty focus can be on pedagogy and classroom management.
• Dispositions measured provide a positive picture of the candidates overall.For all three cohorts measured, tend to be high with a range of 2.88 – 4.0/4.0 if the 1 outlier of a low performing PE candidate is removed.While no apparent trend appears to distinguish licensure areas, it is important to note candidates score at proficient or distinguished in most of the categories.They are especially high in patience and respectful attitude.

Employer and Completer Satisfaction:  While only 7 employers submitted the survey administered by the Indiana Department of Education, the EPP finds its feedback valuable. 

Examining the data, one of the employers was extremely dissatisfied with one of the completers.  In all of the questions, the response ranged from strongly disagree to disagree.  The other 6 responses, however, indicate strengths in the program:

• Completers work effectively with other professionals (Q17) and they work effectively with parents/guardians (Q18).Both of these questions earned an average response of 3.28/4.0.If the EPP removes the one dissatisfied employer, the ratings for these two questions raises to 3.5/4.0.
• The overall satisfaction with the training of the first year teachers is also quite positive.The EPP earned an average of 3.14/4.0.Once again, removing the very dissatisfied employer, the average increases to 3.5/4.0.(While the EPP cannot do so, it wishes it could track the candidates to the surveys to compare the employers’ assessments of the completers to the other data collected while they were candidates in the program.)

Implications

To increase candidate performance in CAEP Standard 1, the MU EPP has identified the following plans of action for the 2018-2019 academic year:

(1) Candidates clearly understand the 10 InTASC standards.  During the sophomore interview with the DTE, candidates can talk about the standards; however, anecdotally, candidates’ responses tend to be based around the observation the InTASC standards are “just good teaching.”  To help candidates articulate the importance of the InTASC standards, the EPP will develop a plan of action for making the standards visible.  After initial brainstorming sessions, the EPP will consider creating InTASC posters and YouTube videos to be accessed by candidates.  More importantly, the EPP will work to infuse the standards into required assessments.  Candidates will have to identify the InTASC standards being met in their work.  The EPP will also develop a rubric for the sophomore and junior interviews with the DTE.  Through the interviews, the DTE will assess candidates’ ability to articulate the InTASC standards.

(2) The EPP will work with providers to identify opportunities in the clinical experiences for the EPP to evaluate candidates on their performance (CAEP 1.2, 2,1).  Currently, performance as an educator is not assessed until the senior year during the SCE and student teaching clinical experience. The EPP recognizes, however, the need to integrate performance-based assessments throughout the program so candidates develop the skills and knowledge assessed during the final stage of the program. According to the employer survey, candidates were not fully prepared to enter the classroom.  This particular question (Q2) asked if MU first year teachers met expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge.  The EPP’s average was a 2.83/4.0, placing it in the high end of “disagree.”  The EPP would like to increase this average as well as the 2.83 average of “understanding how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching” (Q1).  As the EPP revises its program, it will examine ways to create more intentional experiences in these areas.

(3) While the SCE provides the EPP with an adequate evaluation of candidates’ ability to have an impact on P-12 students through research-based best practices and application of content knowledge and pedagogy, the EPP believes revising the SCE into a work sample format would provide candidates with an even more authentic project reflecting the work required of classroom teachers.

(4) The EPP will continue to develop and administer its own employer survey.  Based on the candidate survey it piloted in the spring of 2018, an employer survey will be created and sent to employers of 1^st and 3^rd year completers.  All 1^st and 3^rd year completers will be sent the completer survey in addition to the survey MU sends all graduates.

(5) To continue implement the Danielson model effectively, the EPP sent one of the University supervisors to regional training in April 2018.  This supervisor will train other supervisors and clinical faculty on the use of the Danielson Framework.    In addition to the training for evaluators, the EPP will introduce the Danielson Framework to candidates earlier in their program.  The Danielson is an excellent measure of curriculum design, teaching, and professionalism. 

(6) In the spring of 2018, candidates were required to create plans for e-learning days as part of their integrated unit plans.  They are also held accountable for integrating technology into their lesson plans while student teaching and while completing their impact on student learning projects; however, the EPP recognizes the need for a better plan of infusing technology into the program both as consumers of technology as well as those responsible for using technology in P-12 classrooms.  The EPP will continue to collaborate with clinical faculty and administrators as well as other EPPs to create a formal plan of action for technology.  By the end of the 2018-2019 academic year, the EPP will have a clear, measurable plan of action in place.

(7) The EPP will closely track the trend in the number of candidates admitted to the program versus the number of completers.  Understanding the reasons for the trend will be critical to the future of the program.  In regards to the Pearson content exams, the DTE has organized study tables for candidates.  She is also working with disciplines across the institution to identify how to better prepare candidates.  Intentionally including disciplinary faculty in the preparation of candidates is critical to the development of their content knowledge.