Accreditation

Connecticut legislation explicitly prohibits the linking of any state student-testing database with state educator databases, thereby precluding the use of value-added methodologies for the evaluation of teacher performance based on student achievement.

However, given CAEP standard requirements regarding measurements of student effectiveness, Connecticut EPPs continue to work with the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) to develop alternative reliable and valid methodologies for measuring EPP program impact on student growth.

The EPP at SCSU uses a variety of measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of our programs in preparing our candidates to have an impact on P-12 student learning.

In previous years, we used a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods through employer and completer satisfaction surveys, interviews with school leaders and teacher evaluation data during the induction phase of teaching of our graduates. The EPP prepares day one ready teachers, who apply the knowledge, skills and dispositions developed in the programs. We continuously assess the effectiveness of our initial EPP programs through active partnerships with several of our local school districts and regional education service centers. 

New data for Measure 1 is not available at this time.

The EPP made the decision to change the methodology and format for data collection. The EPP will now be collecting data related to this measure based of focus groups, which we anticipate will result in richer data that will meaningfully inform our practices. A change in leadership in the College delayed the convening of our advisory board and thus the program in this work. A plan is currently underway to collect these data and we expect they will be available to the public by August 15, 2024.

Results from 2020 case are listed below.

The TEAM (Teacher Education And Mentoring) Program is a process of continuous professional growth designed around five professional growth modules aligned to the Common Core of Teaching (CCT). It is an iterative process that deeply engages teachers in the work of analyzing student needs, assessing their knowledge and skills, attaining new learning to develop strategies to address weaknesses and strengths, implementing new strategies and practices, and reflecting on the impact of specific practices on student learning

TEAM program Manual

The TEAM program is composed of 5 modules:

1. Classroom environment
2. Planning
3. Instruction
4. Assessment
5. Professional responsibility

In spring 2021, we collected data on 94 completers who started the TEAM program, 40 completers have finished it and the rest are still in the process of completing it.

We consider that completing the TEAM training provide enough evidence on our completers having positive impact on students’ learning since that is the core part of the reflection of each of the modules.

To date, 99 program completers had completed all or some of the TEAM modules. There are only 11 completers out of the 99 (or 11%) who showed some struggle with some of the modules.

Module 5 is the module that most completers complete with ease, and none had needed any support completing it.

Teacher Effectiveness Case Studies

A shared goal of our various teacher preparation programs is to prepare future teachers who will have a positive impact on P-12 student learning. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) requires EPP to demonstrate the impact of our program completers on P-12 student learning and development.

The College of Education at Southern Connecticut State University conducted several case studies on our program completers in the field to gain empirical insight into the effectiveness of their teaching and their impact on the learning of their P-12 students.

In spring 2021, our advisory board members agreed to share with us non identifiable data about our program completers performance and SEED scores.

The total candidates hired by districts is 151. Out of the 151 completers, only 3 (1.94%) received the score of “Developing”. All the rest scored proficient or exemplary.

• 121 out of 151 (77%) are retained by their hiring districts. Some candidates had switched to different districts.
• Some of our partners were able to provide us with data on the performance of our candidates on the SEED model. For the districts that shared the SEED scores, and on average, the score of our completers For AY 17-18 was 3 and for AY 18-19 it was 3.04. (Score Scale: Below Standard – 1; Developing – 2; Proficient – 3; Exemplary – 4)
• There were no scores reported for AY 19-20, due to the pandemic.

Results of Case Study 2: 2020

The EPP conducted a second case study in Spring 2020, working with one of our providers of clinical field work, a Regional Educational Service Center (RESC) for the twenty-five school districts in south central Connecticut. Approximately 70 of our teacher education candidates are placed in the RESC schools each semester through either clinical field experience or student teaching placement. This core partner offers a representative sample of our graduates and their impact on P-12 student learning.

This case study consisted of qualitative interviews with school leaders based on their evaluations of our program completers. School leaders completed the SEED evaluation to assess teachers across the following four domains:

• Domain 1: Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning
• Domain 2: Planning for Active Learning Teachers implement instruction in order to engage students in rigorous and relevant learning and to promote their curiosity about the world at large
• Domain 3: Instruction for Active Learning
• Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities and Teacher Leadership

Qualitative highlights including areas for continuing improvement by domain follow.

Domain 1: Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning

Across all interviews, school leaders reported that our completers developed strong relationships with students to create welcoming learning environments. Completers were commended for being open, welcoming, and also putting forth efforts to get to know students outside of school. Furthermore, completers were observed acting as mentors to students and celebrating students. Beyond making all students feel welcome, completers also take pride in creating comfortable learning environments for students.

School leaders noted an area of improvement for SCSU completers to be establishing working relationships with co-teachers. Specifically, they noted missed opportunities for teachers to better manage classrooms through small groups as opposed to whole class, by not knowing how to utilize the co-teacher in the room. School leaders believe that, with training for completers on developing and utilizing working relationships with co-teachers in the classrooms, management would be even stronger.

Domain 2: Planning for Active Learning

School leaders elaborated on the planning practices SCSU completers engage in on a daily basis within their schools. Whether it be daily lesson planning with mentors or grade level colleagues, or unit planning with department members across the district, all SCSU completers are responsible for creating and using lesson plans within their classrooms.

Schools commended SCSU completers for being thoughtful and well planned. Completers take advantage of collaborative and individual planning times. This is a strong area for our graduates.

Domain 3: Instruction for Active Learning

SCSU completers were noted for using data throughout their planning practices, however one school leader stated that teachers could benefit from using data more often.

Schools also noted that while SCSU completers are competent in modifying and differentiating work for lower leveled students, at times they struggle to differentiate for students functioning at higher academic levels. 

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities and Teacher Leadership

Through Power School, program completers communicate regularly with parents—on both a daily and weekly basis. In addition, teachers communicate with parents through a Google Doc log regarding individual student progress. 

In regard to professional growth, all interviewees were in agreement that SCSU completers work to better themselves. For example, one teacher took steps within their first year to write a grant in which $10,000 was awarded. Through this grant, the teacher embraced the school’s theme and created connections to STEM with class content.

New data for measure 2 is not available at this time.

Given the low response rate and the limited information that could be deduced from the survey data collected, the EPP made the decision to change the methodology and format for data collection. The EPP will now be collecting data related to this measure based of focus groups, which we anticipate will result in richer data that will meaningfully inform our practices. A change in leadership in the College delayed the convening of our advisory board and thus the program in this work. A plan is currently underway to collect these data and we expect they will be available to the public by August 15, 2024.

Below is the current data that is available:

• Employer Satisfaction Survey: 2020
• Employer Satisfaction Survey: 2015 
• Completers Satisfaction Survey: 2020
• Completers Satisfaction Survey: 2015 

Completion Rate

• Completion Rate = Graduated students / (Admitted students - Active students)
• Graduation Date: Summer 2023 or Earlier

​Completion Rate for Initial Programs (All Levels)

Cohorts are defined as the total number of students admitted to the CoE and who began their program during an academic year (Fall, Spring or Summer). For UG programs, it would be during sophomore year. For post bacc and MAT students, it will be their admission to the program.

Completion Rate for Advanced Programs Reviewed Under CAEP

Licensure Exams – Pass Rates

State Licensure Exams for Initial Programs (as Reported in Title II)

Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.

1. Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2. Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
      

Download Full Report

State Licensure Exams for Advanced Programs

The following pass rates are calculated based on the scores of program completers that we received from Pearson and ETS. The State of Connecticut does not provide official reports for the advanced licensure exams.

Title II Reports

• Report Card—Title II 2022-2023
• Report Card—Title II 2021-2022
• Report Card—Title II 2019-2020
• Report Card—Title II 2018-2019
• Report Card—Title II 2017-2018

Completers Employment Data 

The data used in the tables below were collected from the public records of the Connecticut State Department of Education. The employment data does not include the employment in private schools in CT.

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs (UG and Grad)

N = Number of completers certified and eligible to work in CT with their initial licensure certification
Employment Numbers = Number of candidates employed in CT public schools in their field of licensure area

Note that several program completers do not seek CT certification after program completion.

Advanced Programs (under CAEP review)

N = Number of completers* certified and eligible to work in CT with their advanced license
Employment Numbers = Number of candidates employed** in CT public schools.

The employment numbers exclude candidates employed in Private schools and those who have moved out of State.

* Numerous program completers do not seek the advanced CT certification directly after program completion.

** Advanced program completers often hold multiple CT certifications. Consequently, we are not able to access data indicating under which certification these completers are currently working.