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

Our Educator Preparation Program (EPP) recognizes the importance of tracking its program completers to ensure accountability and drive continuous improvement. To monitor the career trajectories of completers, the EPP employs both informal and formal methods, including alumni self-reporting and data from the public dashboard maintained by the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE).  

Employment Rate for Initial Programs 

To become eligible to work in CT public schools, candidates must have taken and successfully completed their licensure exams and earned CT certification.  To calculate the employment rate, we track our completers who are certified in CT and eligible to work with their initial license.  

The table below shows the employment data for completers eligible to work in CT (earned their CT license no later than August 2024) and who are employed in CT public schools as of August 2024.  

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

Note that completers who graduated in Spring 2024 and who were hired on or after September 1, 2024 are not reflected in the table above. Additionally, it is important to note that the employment data collected does not include positions in private schools within Connecticut, nor employment in other States. 

Employment Rate for Advanced Programs 

Several advanced certification programs require candidates to hold an active initial CT certification and teaching experience. As such, most completers hold one or more active CT certifications. Consequently, we are not able to access data indicating under which certification these completers are currently working. As with the completers for initial programs, it is important to note that the employment data collected do not include positions in private schools within Connecticut, nor employment in other States. 

N = Number of completers certified and eligible to work in CT with their advanced certification 
Employed = Number of candidates employed in CT public schools 

Note that completers who graduated in Spring 2024 and who were hired on or after September 1, 2024 are not reflected in the table above.  

Employment in high-needs districts – Initial teacher prep 

The EPP utilizes the CSDE dashboard to access valuable data on the district-level hiring of completers. Note that the CSDE dashboard only tracks completers who secured a job in a CT public school within 1 year of program completion. 

https://public-edsight.ct.gov/educators/educator-preparation-provider-quality-measures-report 

Retention on the job – Initial teacher prep 

The EPP utilizes the CSDE dashboard to access valuable data on the district-level hiring of completers, and their retention on the job. Note that the CSDE dashboard only tracks completers who secured a job in a CT public school within 1 year of program completion. 

https://public-edsight.ct.gov/educators/educator-preparation-provider-quality-measures-report