Summer 2014 Quarterly Assessment Report Field Placement …...UNHGraduate!Education!Department!...

i

UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report Summer 2014 – Clinical Field Placement Data

UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW OF FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE ......................................................... 3

2. FIELD PLACEMENTS FOR INTERNSHIPS AND STUDENT TEACHING .................................................. 4 2.1 PROCEDURES FOR FIELD PLACEMENTS .................................................................................................... 4 2.2 ANALYSIS OF FIELD PLACEMENTS BY DISTRICT REFERENCE GROUPS ............................................................. 5

3. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 9

INDEX OF TABLES Table 1 -‐ Internship Field Placement by School District AY 2012 -‐ 2013 ....................................................................... 5 Table 2 -‐ Internship Field Placement by DRG AY 2012 -‐ 2013 ....................................................................................... 6 Table 3 -‐ Student Teaching Field Placement by School District – Fall 2013 .................................................................. 6 Table 4 -‐ Student Teaching Field Placement by DRG – Fall 2013 .................................................................................. 7 Table 5 –Candidates’ Field Placement -‐ Change in DRG from Internship to Student Teaching – Fall 2012 -‐ Fall 2013 8

INDEX OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Transition Points ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Figure 2 -‐ Interns' Field Placement by DRG AY 2012 -‐ 2013 .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 -‐ Student Teachers' Field Placement by DRG – Fall 2013 ................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 -‐ Candidate Change in DRG from Internship to Student Teaching – Fall 2012 – Fall 2013 ............................. 8 Figure 5 -‐ Candidate Field Placement in DRG When Moving from Internship to Student Teaching ............................. 9

APPENDIX Appendix A – CSDE List of School Districts by District Reference Group (DRG) ........................................................... 10


3

Introduction

This quarterly report presents and describes selected data as part of the UNH Graduate Education Department’s Assessment System. The assessment system employs multiple measures of assessment to monitor candidates’ progress at various key points in the teacher preparation program. The Assessment System is designed to address five candidate transition points as illustrated in Figure 1. The transition points represent the progression of candidates based on key assessments associated with each transition point. The key assessments are designed to measure candidate proficiencies as described in the UNH Education Department’s “Conceptual Framework for Education,” and meet the accreditation standards of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, formerly known as NCATE). The purpose of the quarterly reports is to examine the quality of the UNH Graduate Education Department’s teacher preparation program based on a review and evaluation of selected key assessment data associated with the various transition points.

Given the number of key assessments, each quarterly report will focus on a select number of assessments, with the intent of addressing all key assessments in subsequent quarterly reports. The focus of the Summer 2014 Quarterly Assessment Report is a review and evaluation of clinical field placement data as related to: Transition Point 2 – Entry to Student Teaching, and Transition Point 3 – Exit from Student Teaching.

The field experiences and clinical practice includes a yearlong internship program, followed by 13 weeks of student teaching. This report describes an analysis field placement data from September 2012 to December 2013. The report consists of the following sections: 1) An Overview of the Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Programs, 2) Candidates’ Field Placements, and 3) Summary and Recommendations.

1. Overview of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Field experiences are an integral component of teacher preparation at the University of New Haven. To fulfill the requirements of the Internship program, candidates are required to complete an intensive 9-‐month, full-‐time internship (i.e., three trimesters), followed by 13-‐weeks of full-‐time student teaching. During the internship program, university supervisors supervise candidates, and during the student teaching experience, candidates are supervised by university supervisors and cooperating teachers, in whose P-‐12 classroom the student teachers are located. While participating in the internship program, candidates concurrently take coursework so that they are able to integrate coursework knowledge, skills and theory with practice, share insights gleaned from practice during internship seminars, and have opportunities to develop professional skills while appropriately supervised. Teacher candidates participating in the internship program earn 3 of the 36 credits in the Master’s degree program. Depending on the number of candidates enrolled during an academic year, UNH’s teacher candidates participate in full-‐time internships in approximately 20 to 50 Connecticut public school districts.

1. Program Entry

2. Entry to Student Teaching

3. Exit from Student Teaching

4. Exit from the Program

5. Follow-‐up

Figure 1 – Transition Points


4

For the internship program, candidates must be in service to the school district for the equivalent of a full school year. Since UNH has two enrollment periods for the teacher preparation program: Fall and Winter trimesters (i.e., effective 2013, the Winter trimester is referred to as the Spring trimester), candidates begin their internships at different times during the school year. Those who begin in the fall (i.e., September) complete their internship in June of that school year, and those who begin in the winter (i.e., January) complete their internship in December of that school year. Upon successful completion of the internship program, candidates student teach for 13 weeks.

The internship program is designed to provide a long-‐term, real time view of the teaching profession. As an intern, candidates observe, shadow, and perform duties that professionals in the school perform. Interns are required to engage in a series of reflective practices – journals and a year-‐long child study – for the purposes of: 1) tracking their experiences during the internship, 2) providing a context for meetings with supervisors, 3) encouraging reflection on the practices of teaching and learning, and 4) organizing sets of materials that demonstrate progress and achievement.

Interns are evaluated throughout each trimester and are graded by university supervisors at the end of each trimester. As student teachers, candidates are also continuously evaluated and are graded for their performance by university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and faculty at the end of student teaching.

2. Field Placements for Internships and Student Teaching

2.1 Procedures for Field Placements Candidates are given the opportunity to work with diverse P – 12 students when placed in internships, shorter field assignments (for those in the Capstone program), and student teaching positions. The distinction between urban, suburban and rural school districts is based upon District Reference Groups (DRGs)1 as determined by data collected by the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). DRGs represent classifications of groups of districts based on several socioeconomic variables, for example, the amount of income in each district and students’ overall need for assistance. Districts with highest overall income and lowest need are represented with a letter code of “A,” while lowest income and highest need districts are represented with an “I.” See Appendix A for a list of the school districts by district reference group (DRG). This section of the report provides an analysis of the diversity of field placements based on internships from September 2012 through June 2013, followed by student teaching, which was completed during the Fall 2013 trimester (i.e., up to December 2013).

Candidates are placed in DRGs with varying affluence and need. They are required to vary their field experiences among the different school districts so that they have the opportunity to work with diverse groups of students. The number of interns, capstone candidates, and student teachers who taught in

1 “DRG -‐ (District reference groups) were developed by the State Department of Education to enable educators to fairly compare groups of districts with similar characteristics. The state's 166 local school districts and three academies have been divided into nine groups based on socioeconomic status and indicators of need.” (http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/csde/definition.asp)


5

each DRG was determined based on the city/town in which they had their field experiences. An assessment was made of the placement of the candidates among the DRGs.

Candidates are provided with instructions on how to identify a district when applying for student teaching. These instructions appear on the form entitled: “Instructions for Student Teaching Application.” The instructions inform candidates that they must follow the “urban, suburban, and rural” guidelines provided on the form. The choice of placement is also a subject of counseling with the academic advisors who must sign off on candidate choices. Candidates are also required to attend an orientation session where the requirements are outlined.

2.2 Analysis of Field Placements by District Reference Groups

Descriptive Data: As shown in Table 1, the 67 interns for this reporting period were placed in 20 different school districts. These data are based on internships from September 2012 through June 2013, followed by student teaching, which was completed by December 2013. Of the 20 school districts, Meriden had the highest number of interns (14), and the majority of the remaining school districts had 1 intern. As shown in Table 2, the 20 school districts represent 7 District Reference Groups (DRGs) ranging from low need districts (e.g., “B”) to high need districts (e.g., “I”). These data are also illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 1 -‐ Internship Field Placement by School District AY 2012 -‐ 2013

Internship Field Placement by School District AY 2012 – 2013 District Frequency % Cumulative %

1. BRANFORD 1 1.5 1.5 2. EAST HAVEN 6 9.0 10.4 3. ESSEX 1 1.5 11.9 4. GLASTONBURY 3 4.5 16.4 5. GROTON 1 1.5 17.9 6. MERIDEN 14 20.9 38.8 7. MIDDLETOWN 1 1.5 40.3 8. MILFORD 7 10.4 50.7 9. NEW HAVEN 4 6.0 56.7 10. NEWINGTON 3 4.5 61.2 11. NORTH STONINGTON 1 1.5 62.7 12. NORWICH 3 4.5 67.2 13. REGIONAL DISTRICT 13 6 9.0 76.1 14. REGIONAL DISTRICT 16 1 1.5 77.6 15. REGIONAL DISTRICT 4 1 1.5 79.1 16. SALEM 1 1.5 80.6 17. TOLLAND 1 1.5 82.1 18. WATERFORD 4 6.0 88.1 19. WEST HAVEN 1 1.5 89.6 20. WOODBRIDGE 7 10.4 100.0

Total 67 100.0


6

Table 2 -‐ Internship Field Placement by DRG AY 2012 -‐ 2013

Internship Field Placement by DRG AY 2012 -‐ 2013 DRG Frequency % Cumulative %

1. B 10 14.9 14.9 2. C 10 14.9 29.9 3. D 15 22.4 52.2 4. E 2 3.0 55.2 5. G 8 11.9 67.2 6. H 18 26.9 94.0 7. I 4 6.0 100.0

Total 67 100.0

Figure 2 -‐ Interns' Field Placement by DRG AY 2012 -‐ 2013

As shown in Table 3, as student teachers, the former 67 interns were placed in 33 different school districts. Of the 33 school districts, New Haven had 13 student teachers, which was the highest number of student teachers placed in a school district. Of the remaining school districts, the number of student teachers per the school district ranged from 1 to 5, with the majority having one student teacher. As shown in Table 4, the 33 school districts represent 8 District Reference Groups (DRGs) ranging from low need districts (e.g., “B”) to high need districts (e.g., “I”). The majority of student teachers (65.7%) were placed in high need districts (i.e., “G,” “H” and “I”). These data are illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 3 -‐ Student Teaching Field Placement by School District – Fall 2013

Student Teaching Field Placement by School District – Fall 2013

District Frequency % Cumulative

% 1. AVON 1 1.5 1.5 2. BRANFORD 1 1.5 3.0 3. BROOKFIELD 1 1.5 4.5 4. CHESHIRE 1 1.5 6.0 5. CLINTON 1 1.5 7.5 6. COVENTRY 1 1.5 9.0 7. CROMWELL 1 1.5 10.4 8. EAST HAVEN 1 1.5 11.9 9. ELLINGTON 1 1.5 13.4 10. ESSEX 1 1.5 14.9 11. GROTON 5 7.5 22.4 12. HAMDEN 4 6.0 28.4 13. HARTFORD 2 3.0 31.3 14. LEDYARD 1 1.5 32.8 15. MANCHESTER 3 4.5 37.3

Student Teaching Field Placement by School District – Fall 2013

District Frequency % Cumulative

% 16. MERIDEN 3 4.5 41.8 17. MIDDLETOWN 4 6.0 47.8 18. MILFORD 3 4.5 52.2 19. MONROE 1 1.5 53.7 20. MONTVILLE 1 1.5 55.2 21. NAUGATUCK 1 1.5 56.7 22. NEW BRITAIN 1 1.5 58.2 23. NEW HAVEN 13 19.4 77.6 24. NORWICH 1 1.5 79.1 25. ORANGE 2 3.0 82.1 26. PLAINVILLE 1 1.5 83.6 27. SEYMOUR 1 1.5 85.1 28. STONINGTON 1 1.5 86.6 29. STRATFORD 2 3.0 89.6 30. THOMASTON 1 1.5 91.0 31. WALLINGFORD 1 1.5 92.5 32. WEST HAVEN 4 6.0 98.5 33. WINDSOR LOCKS 1 1.5 100.0

Total 67 100.0

14.9% 14.9%

22.4%

3.0%

11.9%

26.9%

6.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

B C D E G H I

Interns' Field Placement by DRG -‐ AY 2012 -‐ 2013

Percentage of Interns


7

Table 4 -‐ Student Teaching Field Placement by DRG – Fall 2013

Student Teaching Field Placement by DRG – Fall 2013 DRG Frequency % Cumulative %

1. B 6 9.0 9.0 2. C 2 3.0 11.9 3. D 9 13.4 25.4 4. E 2 3.0 28.4 5. F 4 6.0 34.3 6. G 20 29.9 64.2 7. H 8 11.9 76.1 8. I 16 23.9 100.0

Total 67 100.0

Figure 3 -‐ Student Teachers' Field Placement by DRG – Fall 2013

Analysis of Movement of Field Placements from Internship to Student Teaching: The number and percentage of candidates’ movements from internship to student teaching placements by DRG are shown in Table 5, and Figures 4 and 5. This analysis was based on internships from September 2012 through June 2013, followed by student teaching, which was completed by December 2013. Candidates’ field placements in their internships were compared to their student teaching field placements by looking at changes in district reference groups (DRGs) as they moved from their internship to student teaching. As shown in Table 5, the majority of interns (91.04%) moved to a higher need DRG when placed in student teaching. Approximately 9% of the interns stayed in the same DRG for their internship and student teaching. No intern moved to a lower need DRG when placed in student teaching. These data are also illustrated in Figure 4.

When tracking candidates’ field placements by individual DRGs from internships to student teaching, the data provide further evidence to support that the majority of candidates complete field experiences in diverse settings. For example, the majority of interns (i.e., 90.00% or more) who were in a low need districts (i.e., “B” and “C”) moved to a high need district for student teaching. See Table 5 and Figure 5 for illustration of these data.

9.0%

3.0%

13.4%

3.0% 6.0%

29.9%

11.9%

23.9%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

B C D E F G H I

Student Teachers' Field Placement by DRG -‐ Fall 2013

Percentage of Student Teachers


8

Table 5 –Candidates’ Field Placement -‐ Change in DRG from Internship to Student Teaching – Fall 2012 -‐ Fall 2013

Candidates’ Field Placement Number and Percentage of Candidates Moving from Internship to Student Teaching by DRG

Fall 2012 – Fall 2013

DRG Stays in Same DRG Moves to Lower Need DRG Moves to Higher Need DRG Total

N % N % N % N %

B 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 100.00% 10 14.93%

C 1 10.00% 0 0.00% 9 90.00% 10 14.93%

D 1 6.67% 0 0.00% 14 93.33% 15 22.39%

E 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2 2.99%

F 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

G 1 12.50% 0 0.00% 7 87.50% 8 11.94%

H 2 11.11% 0 0.00% 16 88.89% 18 26.87%

I 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4 100.00%

Total 6 8.96% 0 0.00% 61 91.04% 67 100.00%

Figure 4 -‐ Candidate Change in DRG from Internship to Student Teaching – Fall 2012 – Fall 2013

25%

0%

75%

Candidate Change in DRG When Moving from Internship to Student Teaching -‐ Fall 2012 to Fall 2013

Stays in Same DRG

Moves to Lower Need DRG

Moves to Higher Need DRG


9

Figure 5 -‐ Candidate Field Placement in DRG When Moving from Internship to Student Teaching

3. Summary and Recommendations

The data show that the majority of candidates of the UNH teacher preparation program experience diverse field placements for their internships and student teaching. Ensuring and demonstrating that the candidates have opportunities to complete field experiences in diverse settings is an important component of the program. An analysis of the movement of candidates from their internship to student teaching field placements is conducted annually and is used to assess the diversity of field placements.

0

10

1

9

1

14

0

2

0 0 1

7

2

16

1

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Stays in Same DRG Moves to Higher Need DRG

Num

ber o

f Can

dida

tes

Candidate Placement in DRG When Moving from Internship to Student Teaching Fall 2012 -‐ Fall 2013

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I


10

Appendix A – CSDE List of School Districts by District Reference Group (DRG)

Number DRG Code District Name

1) A DARIEN

2) A EASTON

3) A NEW CANAAN

4) A REDDING

5) A REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 09 (Easton, Redding)

6) A RIDGEFIELD

7) A WESTON

8) A WESTPORT

9) A WILTON

10) B AVON

11) B BROOKFIELD

12) B CHESHIRE

13) B FAIRFIELD

14) B FARMINGTON

15) B GLASTONBURY

16) B GRANBY

17) B GREENWICH

18) B GUILFORD

19) B MADISON

20) B MONROE

21) B NEW FAIRFIELD

22) B NEWTOWN

23) B ORANGE

24) B REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 05 (Bethany, Orange, Woodbridge)

25) B REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 (Middlebury, Southbury)

26) B SIMSBURY

27) B SOUTH WINDSOR

28) B TRUMBULL

29) B WEST HARTFORD

30) B WOODBRIDGE

31) C ANDOVER

32) C BARKHAMSTED

33) C BETHANY

34) C BOLTON

35) C CANTON

36) C COLUMBIA

37) C CORNWALL

38) C ELLINGTON

39) C ESSEX

40) C HEBRON


11


41) C MANSFIELD

42) C MARLBOROUGH

43) C NEW HARTFORD

44) C OXFORD

45) C POMFRET

46) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 04 (Chester, Deep River, Essex)

47) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 07 (Barkhamsted, Colebrook, New Hartford, Norfolk)

48) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 08 (Andover, Hebron, Marlborough)

49) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 10 (Burlington, Harwinton)

50) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 12 (Bridgewater, Roxbury, Washington)

51) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 13 (Durham, Middlefield)

52) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 (Bethlehem, Woodbury)

53) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 17 (Haddam, Killingworth)

54) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 18 (Lyme, Old Lyme)

55) C REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 (Ashford, Mansfield, Willington)

56) C SALEM

57) C SHERMAN

58) C SOMERS

59) C SUFFIELD

60) C TOLLAND

61) D BERLIN

62) D BETHEL

63) D BRANFORD

64) D CLINTON

65) D COLCHESTER

66) D CROMWELL

67) D EAST GRANBY

68) D EAST HAMPTON

69) D EAST LYME

70) D LEDYARD

71) D MILFORD

72) D NEW MILFORD

73) D NEWINGTON

74) D NORTH HAVEN

75) D OLD SAYBROOK

76) D ROCKY HILL

77) D SHELTON

78) D SOUTHINGTON

79) D STONINGTON

80) D WALLINGFORD

81) D WATERFORD


12


82) D WATERTOWN

83) D WETHERSFIELD

84) D WINDSOR

85) E ASHFORD

86) E BOZRAH

87) E BROOKLYN

88) E CANAAN

89) E CHAPLIN

90) E CHESTER

91) E COLEBROOK

92) E COVENTRY

93) E DEEP RIVER

94) E EAST HADDAM

95) E EASTFORD

96) E FRANKLIN

97) E HAMPTON

98) E HARTLAND

99) E KENT

100) E LEBANON

101) E LISBON

102) E LITCHFIELD

103) E NORFOLK

104) E NORTH BRANFORD

105) E NORTH STONINGTON

106) E PORTLAND

107) E PRESTON

108) E REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 01(Canaan, Cornwall, Kent, New Canaan, Slmsbury, Sharon)

109) E REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 06 (Goshen, Morris, Warren)

110) E REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 16 (Beacon Falls, Prospect)

111) E SALISBURY

112) E SCOTLAND

113) E SHARON

114) E THOMASTON

115) E UNION

116) E WESTBROOK

117) E WILLINGTON

118) E WOODSTOCK

119) E WOODSTOCK ACADEMY

120) F CANTERBURY

121) F EAST WINDSOR

122) F ENFIELD


13


123) F GRISWOLD

124) F MONTVILLE

125) F NORTH CANAAN

126) F PLAINVILLE

127) F PLYMOUTH

128) F REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 11 (Chaplin, Hampton, Scotland)

129) F SEYMOUR

130) F SPRAGUE

131) F STAFFORD

132) F STERLING

133) F THOMPSON

134) F VOLUNTOWN

135) F WINDSOR LOCKS

136) F WOLCOTT

137) G BLOOMFIELD

138) G BRISTOL

139) G EAST HAVEN

140) G GROTON

141) G HAMDEN

142) G KILLINGLY

143) G MANCHESTER

144) G MIDDLETOWN

145) G NAUGATUCK

146) G NORWICH FREE ACADEMY

147) G PLAINFIELD

148) G PUTNAM

149) G STRATFORD

150) G THE GILBERT SCHOOL

151) G TORRINGTON

152) G VERNON

153) G WINCHESTER

154) H ANSONIA

155) H DANBURY

156) H DERBY

157) H EAST HARTFORD

158) H MERIDEN

159) H NORWALK

160) H NORWICH

161) H STAMFORD

162) H WEST HAVEN

163) I BRIDGEPORT


14


164) I HARTFORD

165) I NEW BRITAIN

166) I NEW HAVEN

167) I NEW LONDON

168) I WATERBURY

169) I WINDHAM

Summer 2014 Quarterly Assessment Report Field Placement …...UNHGraduate!Education!Department!...

Documents

Transcript of Summer 2014 Quarterly Assessment Report Field Placement …...UNHGraduate!Education!Department!...