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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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)
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
11
Number DRG Code District Name
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
12
Number DRG Code District Name
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
13
Number DRG Code District Name
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
UNH Graduate Education Department Quarterly Assessment Report – Summer 2014
14
Number DRG Code District Name
164) I HARTFORD
165) I NEW BRITAIN
166) I NEW HAVEN
167) I NEW LONDON
168) I WATERBURY
169) I WINDHAM
Top Related