Campus Advisory Classes are in session remotely through the end of spring semester. Our satellite centers in Manhattan, Hudson Valley and Suffolk County are closed; however, all staff and units are accessible remotely. Adelphi's Garden City campus is operational with only essential personnel on-site. » COVID-19 Response

Coronavirus Updates on Operations: Department or campus operations may be modified during this time. Please call or email the department for more information or visit


CAEP Standard 1 – Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Standard 1.1

The College of Education and Health Sciences embraces the Core Values of Scholarship and Reflective Practice, Diversity and Inclusion, Health and Wellness, Creativity and the Arts, and Social Justice and Leadership, informing what our faculty have sought to provide through our educator preparation programs (EPP) to our teacher candidates as they progress from admission to program completion. In undergraduate, graduate and certificate curriculum and field experience, we look to support the competencies that teacher candidates must master about the learner and learning, content, instructional practice, and professional responsibility through these core values. The College of Education and Health Sciences has sought to align its programs with the InTASC Standards, strengthening the progress of teacher candidates in areas central to their professional effectiveness. Standards 1 to 3 address learner and learning through learner development, differences and the environment; Standards 4 and 5 address content through knowledge and its application; Standards 6 to 8 address instruction through assessment, planning and strategies; and Standards 9 to 10 address professional responsibility through professional learning, ethical practice, leadership and collaboration.

The following narrative offers evidence of meeting progressive levels—termed “exploration/synthesis” during the early coursework and field experiences in the EPP and “reflective practice” during student teaching—and the competencies aligned with InTASC. The assessments designed for collecting evidence of our candidates’ growth in content and pedagogical knowledge are the Mid-Point Assessment (program-based), content course grades from the exploration/synthesis point of the programs, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) from the reflective practice point, the Danielson Framework, the Teacher Portfolio Assessment (edTPA), the Educating All Students (EAS) test, the Content Specialty Test (CST), and the Exit Survey. Each of these assessments are described in terms of structure and related research in the accompanying documents Standard 1 Structure and Context of Assessments.

The EPP established 80% of teacher candidates achieving proficiency in any of these measure elements as the target criterion. Data were collected over three years (2015–2018) and by program. Due to space constraints for the self-study, program-specific evidence is offered in a separate document, Standard 1 Program Specific Evidence by Assessments. Data broken down by location for some of the measures will be in the addendum submitted after this report. While the accompanying charts reflect all data of the EPP, no analysis is offered here for programs with teacher candidates of five or less. The narratives offer analyses of scores, but interpretation and program action related to these are addressed in Standard 5 of the self-study.

Learner and Learning

A mid-point assessment (the unit plans and course grades aligned to InTASC) is being collected across programs (1.1.6 Mid-Point Assessment) with a new rubric. The TWS element of alignment with learning goals resulted in 93% to 96% of teacher candidates reaching target (meeting or exceeding expectations on a three-point scale) from 2015 to 2018 on the Garden City campus but lower (decreasing from 95% in 2015–16 to 50% in 2017–18) for Manhattan. 1.1.5 Teacher Work Sample Candidate summarizes this data with means and percentages reaching target in each cell across the EPP and for each program. 1.1.1 Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data offers a breakdown of the frequencies, percentages and means for each of the InTASC standard areas, including Learner and Learning, in alignment with the corresponding domain elements of the Danielson Framework. Corresponding rubrics are available in Danielson Framework Instrument. We established target as being scores of “distinguished” (4) or “proficient” (3) on the Framework. Across the three years, 93%- 100% of all teacher candidates in the EPP (N= 135, 140, and 131 for each of the three consecutive years) achieved target scores for the Learner and Learning elements of the Framework while student teaching. Most of the programs had an increasing number of teacher candidates who achieved target over the three years.

1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data offers a summary of the mean, range of scores and percentage of teacher candidates passing the exam. Overall for the EPP, the mean total rubric score for teacher candidates was 52 with a passing rate of 86% for 2015–16 (N=150) and 2016–17 (N=136), and a mean of 50 with a passing rate of 91% for 2017–18 (N=120). Every year, teacher candidates have reached the 80% target on each rubric related to the learner and learning with the highest percentage (between 97% and 100%) receiving a target score on learning environment and the lowest percentage (between 81% and 82%) on analyzing student language use and content learning. We used three of the competencies on the Educating All Students (EAS) test as aligned with the InTASC Standards of the learner and learning: Diversity Student Populations, English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities. 1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data offers both the overall means, ranges and pass rates on the EAS for 2015–18 as well as scores broken down by program, year and competency. The mean for all teacher candidates in 2015–16 was 525 with 98% passing the test (N=143), 523 and 97% passing in 2016–17 (N=145) and 527 with 98% passing (N=127) in 2017–18.

It is an important aspect of our assessment system to determine how program completers view their own learning experiences in the Exit Survey, given at the end of their final semester and student teaching. The survey was revised in 2015–16 and is being reviewed with our partners, as described in the 2.1.4 phase-in plan for Standard 2.1. Currently, there are thirteen items on the survey aligned with the Learner and Learning Standards for InTASC, “responsive to the needs of diverse learners.” The last three years of data are offered in 1.1.8 Exit Survey Data. The mean score (from “1” to “5”) for the thirteen items related to the three InTASC Standards pertaining to learner and learning was 3.99 (N=108) in 2015–16, 4.16 in 2016–17 (N=78), and 4.01 in 2017–18 (N=72). Across all three years, the mean ratings of these items—relative to other categories on the survey—were in the lowest third. Review of the individual programs show no apparent trend over the three years as to which programs had high or low ratings on the items.


Two InTASC Standards address content: Content Knowledge (#4) and Content Application (#5) of content. They have been aligned with elements of content grades (1.1.6 Mid-Point Assessment), the TWS, the Danielson Framework, the edTPA, the Content Specialty Test (CST), and the Exit Survey.

Content grades were specified by all teacher education program faculty as an indicator of content knowledge for the 2015–2018 academic years. 3.4.1 Candidate Progression Data offers the mean grade point average (based on a 4.0 scale) and the number of teacher candidates for each program and each academic year. All of the mean GPAs across the three years by program are above the target 3.0. The TWS includes the element of clarity and accuracy of presentation aligned with the content InTASC standards. 1.1.5 Teacher Work Sample Candidate Data displays percentages of teacher candidates across the EPP of 89% going to 94% over the three-year period reaching target.

1.1.1, again, offers the Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data by domain and element for 2015–2018. Across all three years, between 93% and 99% of the teacher candidates in the EPP achieved target scores on all of the domain elements of the Danielson Framework aligned with content. In 2015–16, 100% of STEP Master’s teacher candidates (with the exception of Science) across our programs achieved target scores on the content-related domain elements. For those in STEP, there was considerably more variability in reaching target scores, ranging from 33% to 100%. On the assessment overall, the percentage of teacher candidates who achieved target in content domain elements increased in the subsequent two years. 1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data, again, offers a breakdown of teacher candidate performance on each of the rubrics aligned with content, by program and year, with means and percentages achieving the target score of “3” on each. Teacher candidates have reached the 80% target on each rubric related to content knowledge with the highest percentage (between 91% and 94%) receiving a target score on planning for content understandings and the lowest percentage (between 81% and 82%) on analyzing student’s language use and content learning.

1.1.4 Content Specialty Test (CST) Candidate Data offers a summary of three years of teacher candidates in our EPP that passed the relevant CST, as well as means and score ranges, for 2015 to 2018. The percentage of teacher candidates passing the safety version of the respective CSTs across the EPP in 2015–16 (N=100) was 92% with a mean of 238. The pass rate was even higher on the redeveloped CST (N=316) at 96% with a mean of 543. Almost all of the teacher education programs had 100% of their candidates who successfully passed the CST for certification in 2015–2016. The two CSTs representing the biggest challenge to our teacher candidates that year were the redeveloped test in English (77% pass rate, N=13, mean of 526) and the safety and redeveloped versions of the multi-subject (with pass rates ranging from 50% to 100%). In 2016–17, the overall pass rate across the EPP on the safety version of the CST was 94% (N=65, mean of 242) and 93% (N=266, mean of 542) with the redeveloped version.

To determine how program completers view their own learning experiences, the Exit Survey is given at the end of their final semester and student teaching. There were four items on the current survey aligned with the Content Knowledge and Application Standards for InTASC addressing the development of lesson plans that align with the common core standards, literacy/reading, and math/problem-solving. The last three years of data are offered in 1.1.8 Exit Survey Data across our programs in the EPP, an average of 4.10 (N=108 in 2015–16), 4.14 (N=78 in 2016–17) and 4.15 (N=72 in 2017–18) were rated the items pertaining to content knowledge. In percentages, 77% of the program completers felt that their lessons could be aligned with the Common Core in 2015–2016, increasing to 90% in the following year, and down to 67% in 2017–18. There has been considerable confusion over New York State’s stance with regard to the Common Core in schools. Between 76% and 81% of our program completers felt their lessons could include literacy/reading across the three years and between 73% and 80% felt their lessons could address mathematics/problem-solving. The programs with the highest averages on the content-related items on the Exit Survey were Early Childhood Special Education and Childhood Education; the lowest, Adolescent Science, Math and Social Studies, and Art Education.

Instructional Practices

Instructional practices in the InTASC Standards were aligned with the preliminary collection of midpoint assessments by program (unit plans aligned to InTASC, 1.1.6. Mid-Point Assessment), the TWS, Danielson Framework, the edTPA, and the Exit Survey. The TWS involved three elements related to these standards, including interpretation of data, evidence of impact on student learning, and modifications based on student learning. The breakdown by program of these and location are given in Teacher Work Sample Instrument. Overall, the teacher candidates in Garden City achieved target scores on the instructional practices aspects of the TWS 89% (N=120, 2015–16), 91% (N=117, 2016–17), and 93% (N=97, 2017–18) of the time. Those in Manhattan were less frequently at target scores, ranging from 77% (N=19) in 2015–16, to 78% (N=6) in 2016–17, and to 42% (N=8) in 2017–18.

The overall percentage of teacher candidates achieving target scores on the Danielson Framework domain elements (see 1.1.1 Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data) aligned with instructional practices were between 94% and 96% across the three years and are among the highest percentages of teacher candidates’ demonstrated competence on any of the Framework. The notable exception of use of higher-level, open-ended questions, where the teacher candidates who received target scores was between 87% and 93%. While these percentages are still above the criteria we established of 80%, we sought to have some individual program analyses to help determine more about the impact of our support on teacher candidates’ capacity in instructional practices.

1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data again, offers a breakdown of teacher candidate performance on each of the rubrics aligned with instructional practices, by program and year, with means and percentages achieving the target score of “3, 4, 5” on each. Across the EPP, teacher candidates have reached the 80% target on most of the rubrics related to instructional practices with the highest percentage (between 97% and 100%) receiving a target score on planning for positive learning environments and the lowest percentage (between 65% and 73%) with student use of feedback. No other rubric had lower than criteria target scores and the percentage of those achieving target scores increased each of the three years.

The Exit Survey offered in 1.1.7 Summary of Exit Survey Data shows that the majority of the items involving curriculum, assessment, and instruction had percentages well above the criteria of 80% agreement or strong agreement among program completers, ranging from 90% in 2016–17 for engaging learners in critical thinking and in 2015–16 for understanding the social and emotional needs of all students to 80% in 2017–18 for using assessment results to guide instructional decisions. Items resulting in lower than 80% agreement among program completers included working with English Language Learners (58% to 65% over the three years) and developing literacy/reading lessons (76% to 81%). With regard to both items, the percentage of respondents who had no opinion were among the highest on the survey (between 15% and 19%), suggesting that these program completers did not see these areas as relevant and/or part of their experience in the programs.

Professional Responsibility

Of all of the InTASC standards as measured by the Danielson Framework (1.1.1) the percentages of teacher candidates reaching target on those related to professional responsibilities (Domain 4 elements) were the highest. Between 96% and 100% of the teacher candidates scored at target on these domain elements across the three years. 1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data offers a summary of the mean, range of scores, and percentage of teacher candidates by program on these two rubrics over the three years. Overall, teacher candidates in the EPP reached the target score on these two items above criteria levels (80% to 82%). However, the percentages of teacher candidates by program were the lowest on the edTPA-related measurement of InTASC standards.

The mean for all teacher candidates on the EAS (1.1.3) was 525 with 98% passing the test (N=143) in 2015–16, 523 and 97% passing (N=145) in 2016–17, and 527 with 98% passing (N=127) in 2017–18. The highest scores for all teacher candidates were variable across the three years (from 2015–18). In two of the three years reported, the Teacher Responsibilities mean for the EPP’s teacher candidates across programs was one of the two lowest on the EAS (2.2 in 2016–17, N=136; 2.4 in 2017–18, N=125). There were four items on the Exit Survey aligned with the Professional Responsibility (Professional Learning and Ethical Practice and Leadership and Collaboration) for InTASC, four items in the category of “Effective Functioning in School Community.” The last three years of data are offered in 1.1.8 Exit Survey Data. The mean score (from “1” to “5”) for the four items related to the Professional Responsibility Standards was 3.92 in 2015–16 (N=108), 4.05 in 2016–17 (N=78), 3.94 in 2017–18 (N=72).

Standard 1.2

1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data offers a summary of the mean, range of scores and percentage of teacher candidates by score on the three rubrics by program aligned with Standard 1.2 over the three year period. Overall, teacher candidates in the EPP reached the target score on these two items above criteria levels (80% to 82%). In 1.1.1 (Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data), between 96% and 100% of the teacher candidates scored at target on these domain elements related to research and use of evidence across the three years. The Exit Survey (1.1.7) has questions involving assessment of P–12 student progress, part of Standard 1.2: Q13 (Use multiple methods of assessment to monitor learning progress) and Q 14 (Use assessment results to guide questions for instruction). Between 80% and 83% of the teacher candidates who responded to the survey either agreed or strongly agreed that the programs had support their use of multiple methods of assessment and the results to guide instruction.

Standard 1.3

The most comprehensive evidence of meeting the Standards overall comes from our specialty professional association (SPA) reviews which were submitted between 2016 and 2018. 1.3.1 SPA Program Reports and Outcomes, offers a summary of the status of those reviews. 73% of programs were nationally recognized, two of which have conditions and will be resubmitted in March 2019. The earlier review of content knowledge and application (InTASC Standards 4 and 5) and instructional practices (Standards 6 to 8) for Standard 1.1 can be brought to bear here as additional data sources for addressing content and pedagogy beyond the SPA reports. As not all reports include the results of the teacher candidates’ performance on the Danielson Domain Rubric or the edTPA, both proprietary assessments’ results are relevant here for the EPP.

Standard 1.4

There are several elements involved in Standard 1.4, including supporting teacher candidates to effectively teach P–12 students’ critical thinking and problem-solving, transfer of these and other skills to other areas of learning, collaboration/communication, and what we believe to be at the heart of the college- and career-readiness: giving teacher candidates the competencies for effectively teaching diverse student populations. The central question for us is how to support learning needed for P–12 students who are of varied backgrounds and interests for the types of thinking, communication, and collaboration they will need in the world to come. Our core values of Scholarship and Reflective Practice as well as Diversity and Inclusion are at the heart of this.

The Danielson Framework has elements that are aligned with the goal of having all P–12 students gain access to rigorous standards, including almost all elements in Domain 1, several of Domain 2, several of Domain 3, and some of Domain 4 (See Standard 1 Structure and Context of Assessments.) In 1.1.1 (Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data) several of our programs had over 90% of teacher candidates reaching target scores over the three years on these domain elements addressing support of P–12 student access to college- and career-ready standards. Because we understood that Standard 1.4 included to be reflected in the candidates’ teaching of critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and transfer of skills using differentiation strategies for diverse P–12 students, we saw alignments in the edTPA work undertaken by candidates across our programs. 1.1.2. edTPA Candidate Data offers a summary of the mean, range of scores and percentage of teacher candidates by score on these rubrics aligned with Standard 1.4 by program over the three year period. Across the EPP, the percentage of teacher candidates who achieved target on the rubrics aligned with the standard on areas related to critical thinking, problem-solving, transfer of skills, and collaboration were between 87% and 90% across the three years. Similarly, assuming that the EAS (1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data) emphasizes understanding of diverse, ELL, and students with disabilities through the instruction supporting these same skills, the mean for all teacher candidates in the EPP was 525 with 98% passing the test (N=143) in 2015–16, 523 and 97% passing (N=145) in 2016–17, and 527 with 98% passing (N=127) in 2017–18.

The first three of the competencies on the EAS test are aligned with Standard 1.4, determining candidates’ ability to address diverse learning needs: Diverse Student Populations, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities, and Other Special Learning Needs. The latter two are aligned with the communication and collaboration aspect of Standard 1.4: Teacher Responsibilities and School–Home Relationships. Table 1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data offers both the overall means, ranges, and pass rates on the EAS for 2015–18 as well as scores broken down by program, year and competency. The mean for all teacher candidates was 525 with 98% passing the test (N=143) in 2015–16, 523 and 97% passing in (N=145) 2016–17, and 527 with 98% passing (N=127) in 2017–18. The highest scores for all teacher candidates were variable across the three years (from 2015–18). In 2015–16, the highest were the Diverse Student Populations (multiple choice) and English Language Learners (constructed response), both with a mean of 2.9. The highest scores in these two subareas of the test tended to be those teacher candidates from adolescent education and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (with means ranging from 2.4 to 3.7). The following two years, the highest were the English Language Learners (constructed response, with a mean of 3.3) and Students with Disabilities (multiple choice, with a mean of 3.0 and 3.2 respectively). In two of the three years reported, the Teacher Responsibilities mean for the EPP’s teacher candidates across programs was one of the two lowest on the EAS (2.2 in 2016–17, N=137; 2.4 in 2017–18, N=125).

Given the central importance of the areas addressed in Standard 1.4 to the EPP core values, the Exit Survey has many questions that align with that standard, including Q4 (Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking), Q7 (Prepare Lesson Plans for Rigorous Learning Goals and Standards), Q8 (Prepare Lessons Aligned to Common Core Curriculum), Q9 (Adapt Existing Curriculum Materials to Meet the Needs of Students), Q10 (Create a Caring and Compassionate Learning Environment for All Learners), Q13 (Use Multiple Methods of Assessment to Monitor Learning Progress), and Q14 (Use Assessment Results to Guide Questions for Instruction). Table 1.1.7 Summary of Exit Survey Data offers the percentages of responses by item for teacher candidates completing the program from 2015–18. The EPP established 80% as the criterion for the acceptable level of agreement (agree or strongly agree) on the Survey items for the EPP and more than 5% change in percentage of agreement over two years of the survey’s administration as important to review more deeply. The questions involving critical thinking, lessons aligned with rigorous standards, adapting curriculum to the needs of all learners, creating caring environments and using multiple methods of assessment with results guiding instruction were all above the 80% criterion for the items. The question involving the alignment to the Common Core received the least agreement with between 67% (in 2016–17) and 90% (the previous year) of teacher candidates. Again, the confusion about the importance of the Common Core in New York State is part of what these lower scores might represent.

In addition, there are 20 questions (one-third of the survey) addressing diverse populations and ways to teach them, asking for the candidates to identify methods that are explicitly to support diverse students access to the curriculum, as well as items addressing the acceptance of diversity in the teacher candidates’ classrooms. Again, 80% was established as the criterion for the acceptable level of agreement on the Survey items for the EPP with more than 5% change over two years in agreement of teacher candidates as the basis for deeper review. Questions about responding to unique strengths/needs of students, adapting instruction, and understanding the social and emotional needs of all students had percentages of agreement above the acceptable criterion. Items involving multicultural perspectives in the developed curriculum (78% to 84% over three years), addressing bias of different forms (76% to 85%), work with ELL students (58% to 65%), and use of technology to differentiate instruction (70% to 77%) were noted and reviewed.

Teacher candidates completing the program were also asked on the Exit Survey what methods they had the opportunity to apply in their field experiences or student teaching for diverse groups of students—ranging from different learning styles to exceptionalities to linguistic and cultural diversity—including alternative methods for literacy, grouping, individualized supports, and assessments. Only the question about methods based on learning styles reached the criterion we had established (with 91 to 97% indicating that they had the opportunity). The other items ranged from 52% to 78%. On the other hand, between 90% and 91% of the teacher candidates completing the Exit Survey from 2015–18 noted that they had learned three or more methods for differentiating instruction for varied student groups. Teacher candidates were also asked about the experience and lessons of diversity in their own classes within the EPP in terms of faculty acceptance, fair treatment of all students, comfort in voicing their own opinions, and respect of differences from peers and faculty. In all items across the three years, the criteria for acceptable percentages of agreement were reached.

Standard 1.5

With the commitment to technology in the teacher education programs, the EPP located the alignment of the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards to CAEP and sought the design, implementation and assessment in lessons planned for P–12 students by teacher candidates. In the past decade, the framework to look at technology integration that has been used is the Hunter Competencies, guiding the assessment of the impact of technology use on the teacher candidates and the students. Using the Danielson Framework for Teaching, the EPP aligned the ISTE Standards in 1.5.3 ISTE Aligned to the Danielson Framework for Teaching Data, assessing candidate planning, instruction, classroom management and professionalism in the process. This alignment was endorsed by the EPP’s Technology Committee and offers the elements in the four domains for the Danielson Framework for each of the ISTE Standards, summarizing the percentage of teacher candidates in our EPP in 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 who demonstrate they are proficient or distinguished for each element.

The Mid-Point Assessment is a program-based assessment that has multiple purposes for determining the progress of teacher candidates at the “exploration/synthesis” phase of the program, including the mastery of technology’s use in planning, instruction, and assessment for diverse groups of students. The program actions that are being undertaken with the Mid-Point Assessment are discussed in the narrative for technology as a cross-cutting theme (see 1.1.6 Mid Point Assessment, Unit Plans and Course Grades).

For the past seven years, the EPP has included questions about the use of technology on the Exit Survey which, until 2018, involved open-ended questions about the candidates’ use of it to develop curricula, in their teaching, in their assessments, and the evaluation of it in their students’ learning (see Exit Survey Instrument). In 2015–16, almost one-third of the teacher candidates identified Smart Board use for curriculum development and a larger percentage (43%) used it for teaching. Each subsequent year, the percentage using Smart Board for curriculum development and teaching decreased while the use of videos, PowerPoint, and iPads increased to 48%. Across the three years, almost a quarter of teacher candidates were less apt to use technology in assessments except for online grading. Between 16% and 26% of those who responded reported that their students were more engaged with the use of technology and about the same percentage wanted to evaluate students learning before and after its use (see 1.1.7 Summary of Exit Survey Data and 1.1.8 Exit Survey Data).

Standard A.1. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge (Advanced Programs)

See A.1.1. Phase-In Plan for Standard A.1

See A.1.2.3 Phase-In Plan for Standard A.1.2

Standard A.1.2

From the most recent SPA reviews of the EPP advanced programs, Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL), Health and Literacy all have achieved national recognition while the Special Education programs (Early Childhood, Childhood, and Adolescence) have not yet done so (1.3.1 SPA Status of EPP Programs). Overall, advanced teacher candidates in the EPP reached the target score on all areas of the Danielson Framework (A1.2.1 InTASC Aligned with the Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data 2015-2018). When examining the average Danielson scores for advanced candidates in TESOL, Literacy and Special Education programs (Health does not use the Danielson framework in fieldwork) over three years, between 91 and 97% scored at target on elements aligned with the InTASC standards of Learner and Learning, between 91 and 97% scored at target on elements aligned with Content Knowledge standards, between 91 and 100% scored at target on elements aligned with standards involving Instructional Practice, and between 97 and 100% scored at target in Professional Responsibilities. All of the advanced programs’ candidates scored at 100% reaching target in all elements aligned with the Learner and Learning across all three years except for Literacy (with percentages ranging from 50% to 100%). The same trend is seen with elements involving InTASC’s Content Knowledge and Instructional Practice Standards with all advanced program candidates achieving target across all three years except Literacy, again with percentages ranging from 50% to 100% achieving target. With Professional Responsibilities, all candidates in all programs achieved target across the three years with a range of 75% to 100% of Literacy candidates doing so. It should be noted, however, that the number of candidates in each of the advanced programs is relatively small (only a maximum of six candidates in any given year and some years/programs, with no candidates).

A second data set offering substantial evidence that advanced program completers learn and apply specialized content and discipline knowledge is the Content Specialty Test (CST), the state certification exam which is required for all candidates seeking an advanced certification. The CST scores for the advanced programs is offered in A1.2.2 Content Specialty Test Candidate Data 2015-18. This demonstrates that the EPP average for CST pass rates is very strong, with a range between 90% and 100% across all forms of the CST. Across all three years, all candidates in the Early Childhood Special Education advanced program achieved a passing score on the test. Between 80% and 100% of the candidates in Childhood Special Education passed the safety version of the CST across all three years and between 96% and 100% passed the redeveloped version of the CST. Between 60% and 100% of the candidates in the Adolescent Special Education who took the Multisubject version of the CST passed in 2015-16, rising to 75% to 100% in 2017-18. All candidates in Literacy, TESOL and Health passed either version of the CST across the three years.

Specialty Licensure Area Data

  1. Based on the analysis of the disaggregated data, how have the results of specialty licensure area or SPA evidence been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?

In order to address how the analysis of disaggregated data has been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes, the EPP has carefully reviewed the following data: Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA, Content Specialty Test (CST), Educating All Students (EAS), and Danielson rubric scores. Data tables, disaggregated by program, were shared with faculty members initially through a Moodle online platform and for their further analysis in a faculty retreat. In groups organized by program, faculty reviewed their program data and discussed which data sources were most relevant to their programs and how they have used data for program improvement.

A review of the disaggregated data in conjunction with faculty input on program improvement, demonstrated a focus on curricular revision and development. In 2014, New York State implemented a number of new teacher certification exams, including the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) and the Educating All Students (EAS) test, designed to determine candidates’ ability to address diverse learning needs. In addition, Content Specialty Tests (CST) were revised by NYSED beginning in 2016 and continue to be redeveloped in successive order by content area.

This response begins with a program level analysis of data from the three new certification exams: edTPA, CST, and EAS, with a focus on how programs with scores lower than the EPP average are providing additional support for candidates. Next Danielson rubric data at program level is discussed, again with a focus on scores lower than EPP average.

Teacher Performance Assessment Data

Early Childhood and Childhood Special Education

While the majority of teacher candidates have received excellent scores on the edTPA, which are above the national average, some programs had lower pass rates: Early Childhood Special Education (82% (AY 15-16), 100% (AY 16-17) and 67% (AY 17-18)) and Childhood Special Education (71% (AY 15-16), 44% (AY 16-17) and 88% (AY 17-18)). Table 1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data, all data in this section refers to this table.

Programs have strategically and systematically mapped the edTPA across coursework, introducing specific vocabulary and lesson plan elements from the edTPA into foundation courses, and provided additional opportunities for candidates to practice their skills in planning, designing, assessing and reflecting on their teaching and student learning.

Early Childhood Special Education faculty described the process of mapping the edTPA across the curriculum: The first adaptation made was to analyze the many components of the edTPA and integrate the elements into earlier courses, so candidates are exposed to and have opportunities to practice these specific skills prior to their student teaching experience. Input from University supervisors on levels of preparation is critical to this process, and has resulted in a dynamic and growing collaborative relationship amongst faculty teaching at the different transition points. The faculty wanted to both honor the intent of a school-wide assessment and value the specificity of the content of early childhood students with disabilities. To accomplish these tasks, faculty designed a unique differentiated lesson plan format that incorporates evidence-based best practice principles for early childhood special education. This same lesson plan format is introduced in foundations coursework during the exploratory phase, required in all synthesis phase classes and is used as part of the evaluation tool in the TWS during the reflective phase. Consistent use of this format ensures that our candidates can effectively plan, implement and reflect upon their students’ learning. We continue to make modifications and revisions to these assignments in response to data analysis and student needs.

The Early Childhood Special Education Program made a decision to require the edTPA exam, even for in-service candidates, who are not required to submit an edTPA to Pearson for scoring. Faculty recognized that having all candidates share parts of the same assessment would allow comparisons and analysis of performance trends.

Both special education programs have strengthened efforts to assess applicant skills upon admission to ensure that applicants can successfully complete the programs and that those with weaker skills receive necessary academic support. Faculty members assess candidate’s pre-requisite skills during the admissions process and early in the exploration phase. Transcripts are reviewed for undergraduate courses as well as for levels of preparation and performance in composition. Candidate’s essays are scored carefully for their written expression. This allows faculty to screen candidates for difficulties in these areas, and take steps early on to prescribe additional prerequisite coursework and/or refer them to our Writing Center, as necessary. Pre-requisite coursework is closely analyzed to ascertain levels of preparation in the academic content areas, and candidates with weaker preparation are required to take additional coursework in the content areas.

Music Education

As faculty members analyzed edTPA data, they were careful to take note of data in years with fewer completers, as this skewed the pass rate. For example, Music Education (86% (AY 15-16, N= 7), 50% (AY 16-17, N=2), 100% (AY 17-18, N=4). While the 50% pass rate for AY 15-16 was initially of great concern, the N of 2 indicated that only one candidate failed the exam. Pass rates in 15-16 and 17-18, which had a larger N, were much stronger.

Math Education

Math Education faculty members reviewed their edTPA scores (88% (AY 15-16), 78% (AY 16-17), 100% (AY 17-18). They noted that the 15-16 cohort (across MA and STEP), saw an improvement over AY 14-15, the first year that the edTPA was implemented, which indicated that their curricular work to introduce elements of the edTPA, including the lesson plan format and specialized language of the edTPA, had a positive impact. In their analysis of sub-elements of the edTPA, candidates had the most difficulty with items 8 (Deepening Student Learning), 13 (Student Use of Feedback), 9 (Using Representations), 2 (Planning to Support Varied Student Learning Needs), and 15 (Using Assessment to Inform Instruction).

The 5 lowest sub scores are all reflected in NCTM Standard 3 for Content Pedagogy, which are addressed in math methods courses such as 809-594, Critical Literacies in Math and Science Education, as well as in 809-513, Instruction and Assessment in Secondary Mathematics Education. This weakness in 5.3c Student Learning, in particular Item 8 Deepening Student Learning is similar to the weakness noted previously in 5.2b, Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions in candidates’ ability to use questioning sequences to promote learning. There is a consistent theme in this area for which our candidates need further support and development in process standards. Faculty will enhance the use of online resources, which provide strong models demonstrating teachers utilizing questioning sequences, to promote higher order mathematical thinking in methods courses. In addition, a math specific Pathwise addition will evaluate candidates’ use of these process standards in student teaching.

Content Specialty Test Data

As discussed above, Content Specialty Tests (CSTs) were redesigned by NYSED beginning in 2016 and continue to be redeveloped sequentially for each content area. While EPP-wide, the pass rate has been above 90% in each of the three years covered by this report, some programs had lower pass rates. Table 1.1.4 Content Specialty Test (CST) Candidate Data, all data in this section refers to this table.

English Education

The English Language Arts (ELA) CST was redeveloped in 2017. A safety net, allowing candidates to take the earlier version, was provided for candidates until June 2017. The English faculty analyzed the new test version along with student data and determined that candidates scored lower on the constructed response item, which required that candidates compose a written response regarding an instructional goal and strategies. In a review of candidate written work, the faculty noted that candidates had difficulty writing informative and explanatory texts. They plan to include greater focus on teaching these textual strategies in the Teaching Composition course, which all pre-service English education majors are required to take. CST scores have demonstrated an upward trend (79 % AY 15-16, 79% AY 16-17, and 91% AY 17-18).


The Literacy CST was redeveloped in 2017. Candidates have demonstrated excellent pass rates (100% for all AY 15-16, 16-17, 17-18). Faculty members reviewed the sub scores and two areas where students showed some weakness (with below level or just below level scores) were in the Reading and Writing Foundational Skills and the Role of the Literacy Professional. Faculty have obtained a copy of the NYS exam preparation book to determine the areas which may not be addressed sufficiently. Upon review, they will make modification to methods class The Reading-Writing Connection (ELY 602) and Organizing Supervising and Reforming Literacy Program (ELY 789), which deals with the role of the literacy professional.

Early Childhood and Adolescent Special Education

New CSTs were implemented for these two programs in 2017 (Early Childhood) and 2018 (Adolescent Special Education). These exams consist of multiple parts: Part 1: Literacy and English Language Arts, Part 2: Mathematics, and Part 3: Arts and Sciences. Faculty members noted that the pass rates in Part 1 were between 80-100% for all candidates; in Part 3, in which the same exam is taken by all grade levels, candidate scores ranged between 98%-100%.

However, candidates had lower passing rates in Part 2 (Mathematics). Pass rates for Early Childhood Special Education candidates (B-2) ranged between 67%-100%. Childhood Education Candidates (1-6) had pass rates between 83%-96%. Adolescent Special Education (7-12) pass rates ranged between 50%-80%.

Based on this data, it became evident that candidates required additional support in math. Under the direction of the dean, the department chair and certification director collaborated to make available workshops for teacher candidates. In January and February 2019, six math workshops were provided to teacher candidates at 3 levels (B-2, 1-6, and 7-12). The workshops provided a refresher on the following math topics: Numbers & Operations, Operations & Algebraic Thinking, Measurement, Geometry & Data, Instruction in Mathematics, and Analysis, Synthesis, & Applications. In addition, faculty members have requested that NYSED provide a practice exam for the Part 2 (Math) of the Multi-Subject exam, but NYSED has not yet made this available.

Art Education (Undergraduate and Graduate)

CST scores in Art Education were weak (63%, 100% (N=1), 67% respectively). Faculty members have provided updated materials in the library for Art Education CST and online support. The revised CST for Art Education will be available in Fall 2020. Faculty members are aware of the revision date and will carefully review the revised CST information, as it is made available by NYSED, in order to ensure that the content of the revised exam is integrated throughout the curriculum, so that candidates are well prepared for this revised CST.

Educating All Students Data

This certification exam was implemented in May 2014. Faculty members worked diligently to understand this new exam and prepare to support teacher candidates. Adelphi faculty members collaborated with The Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities in New York (CICU), to offer professional development on the new exams between 2013 and 2015). Dr. Devin Thornburg provided an update for faculty members on the content of the new exams in a faculty meeting in March 2014. The 2014 Faculty Retreat involved an analysis of data from students who had taken the new exams and a discussion of student needs related to the new exams. Faculty discussed the need for greater academic language needs to be included in coursework-knowledge of language demands and how to support it. Faculty also discussed strengthening in-class writing components, especially related to case studies or the EAS exam, to some courses in the program. Faculty determined that candidates required additional support on the exam. An EAS workshop was developed, by Dr. Devin Thornburg, for teacher candidates and is offered each semester. The director of certification then took on the role of offering exam preparation and developed online materials available through the Adelphi Intranet. Candidate results demonstrate that the preparation and workshops were effective.

Graduate Art and Music Education

The EPP pass rates on EAS are (98%, 97%, and 98% respectively). Table 1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data, all data in this section refers to this table. Some programs including Graduate Art and Music Education demonstrated weaker scores (86% and 88% in AY 15-16), but both programs had a 100% pass rate in AY 16-17 and AY 17-18.

Danielson Data

Several teacher education programs demonstrated 90% of candidates reaching target scores over the three years on these domain elements addressing support of P–12 student access to college- and career-ready standards. Table 1.1.1 Danielson Framework for Teaching Candidate Data, all data in this section refers to this table. These programs include Early Childhood Special Education (both locations), Childhood Education (both STEP and Master’s levels), Art Education (Graduate), TESOL (Garden City), and Physical Education (Graduate). Teacher candidates in programs that had lower percentages showed basic scores that were in an array of areas related to the standard for college- and career-readiness, including higher-level questions (in two years of data, English Education, Master’s level; Math Education, Master’s and STEP; Science Education, Master’s and STEP; Social Studies Education, STEP; Art Education, Graduate; Music Education, Undergraduate), designing coherent instruction (Science Education, Master’s and STEP; Social Studies Education, STEP; TESOL, Manhattan) and managing classroom procedures (Art Education, Graduate; English Education, STEP and Master’s; Math Education, STEP and Master’s).

  1. Based on the analysis of specialty licensure area data, how have individual licensure areas used data for change?

Each program which submitted a SPA report has carefully reviewed key assessment data and feedback from SPA reviewers. This section discusses how programs have used SPA data to make program improvements.

Childhood Education

The Childhood Faculty meet regularly and collaborated in the review of three cycles of key assessment data, collected for their SPA report. Faculty noted their previous collaboration in 2011 with Literacy Education faculty members to develop two more rigorous literacy methods courses based on the previous report’s findings. These courses were implemented in 2014 and have had a positive impact on candidates’ literacy knowledge, as demonstrated in scores on KA 1 (CST).

The faculty implemented more rigorous writing requirements in the courses prior to student teaching to address early indications that the edTPA and other state certification exams would demand analytic writing skills.

The advent of the Unified Science for Elementary Educators course in STEP program has begun to have an impact on the depth of science content knowledge of our candidates. It should be noted that there have been required courses in art and health education for candidates for some years.

A new policy from New York State mandates that entering teacher education candidates have a 3.0 or B average grade from previous degrees and programs. This will begin to improve the preparation of candidates in the MA program in content-based knowledge.

Faculty members have begun to identify and/or co-create coursework in core content areas with liberal arts and science department faculty, similar to science, for English, social studies, and mathematics that are aligned with elementary education curriculum (e.g. the Common Core Learning Standards).

Piloting of the mini-edTPA in the pedagogy courses began in 2014-2015 and appears to be supporting more thorough and detailed instructional planning and evidence-based pedagogical decision making. This change results from faculty’s analysis of KA 5 (edTPA).

Since 2008, pedagogy courses in STEP have been available in partner schools to connect fieldwork with instructional planning. In 2015-2016, that was expanded to include a full-year residency program for fifth-year STEP students to allow for greater connection between planning and reflection with rich field experiences. In 2016-2017, that will include fifth-year coursework given in the district with clearer connections to practice and research in assignments.


TESOL faculty members have carefully reviewed SPA standards and key assessments and made the following changes to improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes:

Foundations of Bilingual and Multicultural Education (EBE 500): Based on changes in TESOL professional standards, faculty members increased focus on parental involvement and community assets, interviews with teachers that work with linguistically diverse learners, more focus on reflecting on the fieldwork experience regarding bilingual/multilingual/multicultural learners.

Assessment Considerations for ESL and Bilingual Populations (EBE 540): Faculty closely reviewed updated professional standards for TESOL and made the following changes in this course: The rubric and main assignments were changed to reflect changes on digital and multilingual assessments; a greater emphasis on writing assessments; the design of pre and post assessments; an increased focus on assessment for levels of proficiency; identifying and working with ELLs with disabilities, especially differentiating between language disorder and language development.

Theories of Second Language Acquisition (EBE 521): Based on review of KA 6 and feedback from SPA reviewers, the main assignments and rubrics were changed to include more field-based and classroom-based experiences. Pathwise addendum to Danielson observation form: this form was thoroughly revised to reflect changes in the TESOL professional standards. Items on community and professional involvement were included as well as culture, home, and family integration.

Science Education

Because Science Education is closely linked to content that teacher candidates take in the College of Arts and Sciences, science education faculty continue to develop and enhance connections with faculty in biology, chemistry, physics and environmental science. The two groups of faculty have identified courses and experiences (e.g., research seminars) to co-design and co-teach that would best enhance the apparently weaker areas of knowledge and skills of our candidates. Faculty will explore co-designed courses for biology candidates on the “general characteristics, [life] functions, and adaptations” of the variety of living things other than humans; for all candidates, they will investigate co-construction of courses which explore the design and execution of scientific investigations into phenomena in their disciplines. For example, in response to the latter issue, faculty will revisit the Special Topics course in Field Science that already exists in our own program (0809-723) and require it for all students who do not otherwise have documented experiences in designing, executing, and writing full-length studies or experiments in their disciplines, which has been indeed the sole focus of that course.

A close review of KA 2 (GPA from core science areas) was instrumental in faculty’s decision to require candidates to focus on content with which they are less familiar in at least one of the two full-length mini-teaching assignments in one or both secondary science methods courses (0809-517 and 0809-617) that include in-discipline lesson planning, peer teaching, and outcomes analysis. In addition, more emphasis will be placed on the processes of inquiry and experimentation, based on the review of KA3 data, a science lesson unit, resulting in curricular revision of the instruction and assessment course (0809-517) and more generally addressed throughout the content and pedagogy course (0809-617).

Based on the review of KA 7 (edTPA tasks 2 and 3) faculty have revised both methods courses to include the use of video recording for self-analysis and class discussion of teaching episodes to help our candidates learn to align what and how they prepare to teach with the realities of executing those plans, i.e., with “real” students in “real” class settings, which we hope will continue to sharpen our candidates’ skills in predicting how to best expose and transform naïve scientific ideas (i.e., preconceptions and/or misconceptions) and meaningfully gauge the extent of that transformation with formative and summative assessments that are as closely aligned with the NSES (2000)-defined elements of inquiry as possible (edTPA: Task 1—Planning). Video of these teaching episodes is produced and clips are shared for peer mini-teaching (fall methods course) which candidates privately watch and analyze their own work for the first time, and in field teaching (fall and spring methods courses) when candidates can use as a substitute for peer mini-teaching. They share the video in its entirety with their peers electronically before the session and peers offer feedback, which is both direct and anonymous (i.e., done on the same form field supervisors and cooperating teachers use for formal observations).

Social Studies

Social studies faculty analyzed the sub-elements of KA 1(CST scores) and noted the lowest scored sub area was in the area of Economics, Geography and Civics. As they further analyzed areas of weakness, they saw a weakness in the content area of Economics.

Candidates were already required to take at least one course in economics. But since the data reflect that some candidates may not have exposure to a broad range of economic concepts, faculty are examining their course selections. It may be advisable to require Introduction to Economics, an Economics course that deals primarily with macro and micro economics. Additionally, in our methods course (0809- 0518/ 0809-618: Social Studies Content, Pedagogy and Assessment: Learning with Master Teachers), candidates will learn how to teach 12th grade economics from a master teacher.


Because of the increase in students who are English Language Learners (ELL) in schools on Long Island and in NYC, literacy faculty felt it was important that our candidates learn the theory and instructional techniques for effective literacy teachers. As of fall 2015 all new literacy MS students are required to take the class TESOL 1: Developing Literacy Skills in the ESL classroom. We do not require this for the CAGS program due to the concentrated course of study.

During evaluation of the Beliefs and Practices section of the Exit Electronic Portfolio (KA 2), faculty found that some candidates were having difficulty in applying their foundational knowledge to their beliefs about instruction and assessment. One area in particular that candidates struggled with was knowledge of important literacy researchers. In order to address this, additional time was devoted to this in ELY 600 (Research 1) and ELY 751 (Assessment II) to make a direct connection from their beliefs to how they would apply this in their own classrooms.

Emphasis on writing conventions: the concern with Composition and Mechanics is an on-going issue with more attention now being given to early screening of candidates’ writing skills with appropriate intervention to provide support earlier in the program. Instructors in all classes have been increasing the number of writing assignments and the number of drafts required in order to develop the candidates’ writing skills. The instructors in Assessing and Addressing Literacy Needs I and II (ELY 750 and 751) and Practicum in Literacy (ELY 753 and 754) are also planning to emphasize the conventions of report writing more in their classes. Students who need additional support are directed to the University’s Writing Center.

Faculty members have added greater emphasis on lesson planning and implementation based on children’s assessment, based on analysis of KA 3 (Literacy Profile). The course instructors for Assessing and Addressing Literacy Needs I and II (ELY 750 and 751) recognized that some literacy candidates did not have adequate background in lesson planning, implementation and differentiated instruction. More emphasis will be given to educating students how to connect the children’s literacy assessments with instructional goals and lesson planning. To further develop candidates’ ability to connect assessment with instruction, new assignments were developed that will require candidates to evaluate data from an assessment and discuss instructional technique(s) they would use in order to help that particular student. These scenarios will be included in our methods courses (602 & 603) and our assessment courses (750 & 751).

Health Education

Data demonstrated that a large majority of candidates achieved acceptable or target levels for Key Assessments 3, 4, 5 and 6. The courses, Teaching Human Sexuality (HED 621) and Dynamics of Teaching Health (HED 703), developed a KA 3 where candidates are introduced to lesson planning, instructional strategies and assessment. KA 6 comes from School Health Programs and Policies (HED 627) where the focus is on school policies and programs that affect student learning and student health. HED 792 Fieldwork Internship is the source of KAs 4 and 5 where candidates complete the edTPA after planning and implementing health instruction and reflecting on student learning. Areas to address that arose from these KAs include candidates’ ability to authentically assess learning objective and to provide current, appropriate educational resource materials and reflect on student learning.

Despite the small number of candidates underachieving in the areas noted above, we are poised to make curricular changes to address those areas, which will benefit all candidates, moving those from unacceptable achievement to acceptable and moving more candidates toward target level. Overall the revised program will afford candidates more instruction in pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions. The planned program changes are as follows:

Convert HED 621, Teaching Human Sexuality from a single content area methodology course to HED 508 Introduction to Teaching Health Education that provides candidates with more pedagogical knowledge and skills across health content areas, specifically authentic assessment.

Incorporate 50 hours from HED 792 Fieldwork Internship into the new HED 508 Introduction to Teaching Health Education, and 50 hours into HED 703 Dynamics of Teaching Health Education, an existing course in the program. This provides candidates with fieldwork experience across two semesters instead of one, increasing opportunities to further develop pedagogical and professional skills in longer school experiences.

Upon review of revised SHAPE American Professional Standards, faculty members plan to eliminate content specific policy course, HED 701 Substance Abuse Prevention and incorporate concepts into existing HED 627 School Health Programs and Policies. This will increase opportunities for candidates to work with Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (CSHP) concepts and school/community-based approaches to student learning and student wellness. HED 627 School Health Programs and Policies will put more emphasis on the use of important HED documents, tools and databases allowing candidates to use existing valid and reliable tools and increase familiarity with appropriate educational resource materials for dissemination.

Early Childhood Special Education

As part of their review to prepare for the CEC and NAEYC/CEC blended SPA reports, faculty made a number of important curricular decisions. They have replaced isolated coursework in art, literacy, science, technology and social studies with an Integrated Content course (0814-730) that focuses on the multi-modal and cross-disciplinary nature of how young children learn content across academic and other domains. The Emergent Literacy course (0802-640) has been redeveloped to emphasize the development of speech and language in culturally and linguistically diverse populations, as the immigrant population in the Greater New York area becomes more linguistically diverse. We have strategically and systematically mapped the edTPA across coursework, introducing lesson plan elements into foundation courses, and then providing multiple opportunities for candidates to practice their skills in planning, designing, assessing and reflecting on their teaching and children’s learning.

Childhood and Adolescent Special Education

In preparation for their CEC SPA report, faculty members reviewed data for the CST exam (KA 1) and decided to encourage candidates to take the NYS CST exam at the end of the program when they are better prepared for state licensing. Program faculty have been given New York State Teacher Certification Examination (NYSTCE) guides to enhance our knowledge of the NYS CST exam. Faculty disseminate these guides through advisement as well as during student teaching seminars.

Based on feedback from the initial submission of the report, faculty members have reviewed assessments to ensure that they are age appropriate for candidates pursuing childhood or adolescent tracks. Faculty have worked closely with the PECE Office to review fieldwork placements to ensure that candidates benefit from a range of placements at the appropriate age level.

Math Education

Math Education faculty found that the math specific Pathwise addendum to Danielson, demonstrated candidate weakness in some math teaching areas. Specifically, the elements pertaining to: problem solving using robust problems (60%), reasoning using patterns and generalizations (70%), and communication using wide array of communication modes (70%) were met only at the basic level. Faculty members attribute these newly revealed weak areas to the more fine-tuned instrument, directing supervisors’ attention more closely to the NCTM elements. Faculty are pleased that the new rubric is highlighting some of the weaker areas in our candidates, so that these areas can be targeted during ongoing conferences during student teaching.

The math specific Pathwise addendum has highlighted faculty concern that candidates are not yet meeting the NCTM standard 2 in their pedagogy, being weakly-proficient in modeling, reasoning, and problem solving in their instructional practice. Stronger fieldwork exposure and modeling of questioning sequences and use of online resources will improve these areas. In two courses (0809-613 “Math in the Secondary Inclusive Classroom” and 0809-513 “Instruction and Assessment in Mathematics Education”), candidates are now using 2017 revised assessments (KA3, KA6, KA7, KA8) to address some of the concerns raised in the last report (see section VI for more details). We continue the extensive exploration of Cangelosi’s “Create a Concept” and “Discover a Relationship” higher level questioning sequences (Teaching Mathematics in Secondary and Middle School (Merrill Prentice Hall 2003) as well as the NCTM Essential Understandings Series Bundle.

  1. How does the specialty licensure area data align with and provide evidence for meeting the professional standards in the licensure area at initial and specialty area for advanced?

This question is not being addressed, as the EPP is not using CAEP Program Review with Feedback.

  1. How are SPA reports that are not Nationally Recognized being addressed?

73% of programs were nationally recognized, two of which have conditions and will be resubmitted in March 2019. CEHS submitted 22 initial SPA reports. 14 programs have been Nationally Recognized until 2027; 2 programs are Nationally Recognized with Conditions until August 2019; 6 programs were not Nationally Recognized (Table 1.3.1 SPA Program Reports and Outcomes). This section will provide information and next steps for the 6 programs that were not nationally recognized, the two programs which are recognized with conditions, and one program which was classified as an add-on after the initial submission.

Note that a number of National Recognition reports were received on February 1, two weeks before the CAEP report deadline of February 15. Because of this short timeline, faculty members have summarized next steps, but will continue to refine and strategize plans as they have additional time to review and discuss reviewers’ comments.

Physical Education (Undergraduate and Graduate – Reviewer Comments are identical for both reports)

Conditions that remain unmet:

  1. Provide evidence for meeting: (1) “Apply” expectation of Elements 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 and (2) Element 1.5. The five assessment rubrics are bundled together as if they were one. This is confusing as these assessments are administered in different courses throughout the program. This can be addressed through revisions to Assessment 7 where the attempt is currently made to provide evidence; or, revisions can be made to other assessments (e.g., Assessment 4, Intern Evaluation); or, start over by creating a new assessment. Response: Multiple assignments and rubrics were used to address the “Apply” aspect of Elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5. Faculty separated each rubric and assignment for this standard. Each rubric is separate, numbered and clearly labeled to align with each assessment (assignment) description in 4e. All rubrics were included in section 4f, as required by the SPA format. Program faculty will carefully review the comments regarding elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5. Reviewer comments focus on rubric design and indicators of proficiency levels, so faculty are confident that revisions to the rubrics will demonstrate the “apply” aspect of the required elements. Reviewers commented that grading expectations were not included for information given to candidates. Faculty routinely provide rubrics to candidates with the assignment, so that grading expectations are made clear to candidates upon receipt of assignment.
  1. Using comments provided in Part B of the prior National Recognition Report and this one, too, revise Assessment 2 for meeting Elements 2.1 and 2.3.Response: In the 2019 Recognition Report, 2.1 and 2.3 were met with conditions. However, reviewers did not provide an explanation for why 2.3 was met with conditions. Faculty members will seek further clarification on 2.3 before submitting the next SPA report. In the next SPA report, rubrics will be re-assessed to fully meet elements 2.1 and 2.3.
  1. Any assessment that has been revised or is a new assessment, in efforts to address conditions 1 and 2 above, must be implemented to collect one administration of new data; analyze and interpret these new data. Response: A new SPA report will be submitted in 2024 and will include the required three cycles of data.

Early Childhood Special Education (CEC Report)

Areas for Consideration:

  1. Fall 2018 was the program’s final opportunity to address the conditions to receive National Recognition through two re-submissions. Inability to do so resulted in a “Not Nationally Recognized” decision. The program level review will be conducted again for the next accreditation site visit (following Fall 2019).
    Response: While faculty were aware of previous opportunities to re-submit the report, the previous recognition report required the review and revision of all rubrics. Following rubric revision, one full academic year was required to collect a cycle of data, as courses are not held each semester. The faculty made multiple efforts to clarify the comments in the previous recognition report, meeting on two occasions to review and discuss the report and then attending the preconference workshop for SPA writers, which was held at the Annual CEC Conference.
  1. The faculty are encouraged to cite as evidence only those assessments that are apparently and meaningfully aligned to the respective CEC Standards. In addition, the standard alignment should be revisited assuring that numerous elements are not listed for a rubric component that are not justified in the performance levels.
    Response: Faculty members will work to review elements of CEC standards and alignment within each rubric, assuring that only elements appropriate for the rubric component are used. Faculty note that the Division for Early Childhood of the CEC has announced a new set of standards, currently in development, which will offer a stand-alone set of standards for early interventionists and early childhood special educators. Once finalized and approved, these Standards will be used by higher education faculty to develop curriculum, and for early childhood reports for CEC/CAEP program review. Faculty will review and provide comment on these standards when they become available.
  1. Faculty are encouraged to examine performance levels to make sure the levels are clearly differentiated.
    Response: Faculty acknowledge that there may be a lack of differentiation between proficient and advanced levels in some rubrics. The first recognition report indicated that the report was too content-based. In response the faculty reviewed and revised each rubric to reflect a more performance-based focus. In their focus on this issue, faculty may have neglected to discriminate fully between rubric levels. This will be revised in the next submission.

Early Childhood Special Education (NAEYC/CEC Blended Report)

Areas for Consideration for NAEYC:

  1. The faculty are encouraged to cite as evidence only those assessments that are apparently and meaningfully aligned with Standards. Identify the two to three assessments that offer the strongest evidence of meeting each standard and do not include those with only tangential evidence.
    Response: Faculty members will consider the number of key assessments and their meaningful alignment with standards. Faculty are currently discussing a comprehensive review of key assessments to align with the revised CEC and NAEYC standards. One option currently under consideration is to unlink assessments from individual courses and to design more practice-based key assessments which provide opportunities for candidates to complete assignments in more authentic teaching situations. This change would enrich the program through a closer integration of clinical practice with teacher preparation.

Areas of Consideration for CEC (Addressed above in CEC report).

Special Education (Childhood and Adolescent – Reviewer Comments are identical for both reports)

Fall 2018 was the program’s final opportunity to address the conditions to receive National Recognition through two re-submissions. Inability to do so resulted in a “Not Nationally Recognized” decision. The program level review will be conducted again for the next accreditation site visit (the following Fall 2019).

Response: Faculty were aware of previous opportunities to re-submit the report. However, the previous recognition report required the review and revision of numerous rubrics. Following rubric revision, one full academic year was required to collect one cycle of data, as courses are not held each semester.

CEC Preparation Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 were found to be “met with conditions.” For each CEC Preparation Standard or CEC Field Experience Standard judged either “not met” or “met with conditions,” the program needs to consider the following:

  1. Revise Field Experience documentation to support special education candidates progress through a series of developmentally sequenced field experiences for the full range of ages, types and levels of abilities, and collaborative opportunities that are appropriate to the license or roles for which they are preparing. These field and clinical experiences are supervised by qualified professionals.
    Response: In the rejoinder submitted for Childhood and Adolescent Special Education, tables were provided to identify 1) courses with a fieldwork component and when candidates take the course and  2) to specify the fieldwork placement, demographics, and supervisor qualifications. Tables will be modified to include greater specificity regarding the grade level of the fieldwork component.  Faculty members will work closely with the office in charge of fieldwork and student placement to demonstrate how candidates progress through a series of developmentally sequenced field experiences. In addition, tables and narrative will further clarify the fieldwork hours required for specialized licensures, including the Advanced Certificate and in-service Childhood Special Education programs.
  1. The Section II and Section III tables that document the alignment of each program assessment to the major elements of the CEC Preparation Standard as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set;
    Response: Rubrics were aligned to the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set, but as we move forward our program will review and revisit the tables in Sections II and III to ensure they are well aligned to the standards as informed by the specialty sets.
  1. The assessment descriptions, scoring guide/rubric, and data for each of the program assessments that provide the evidence that they are aligned to the major elements of each of CEC Preparation Standard as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set;
    Response: Rubric development was informed by the standards and Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills sets and as such aligned across rubric descriptors. However, program faculty will re-examine and re-design assessments, descriptions and rubrics to ensure that each standard is appropriately measured and aligned to the major constructs of the elements as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills sets.
  1. Rubrics must focus on candidate performance and consequential attributes of candidate performance and indicator performance levels must clearly describe progression of candidate performance.
    Response: Faculty acknowledge that rubrics are frequency-based, rather than performance-based. They will seek out guidance and workshops in developing performance-based rubrics that assess teacher candidate’s quality of work through more robust and objective qualifiers. Also, special education faculty will revisit assessments 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to determine which assessments and elements are best aligned to standard 1. Rubric design will be a major consideration in the submission of the next report, ensuring that levels are performance-based and objective, while being able to differentiate levels based on the quality of teacher candidate behaviors.
  1. Sufficient performance data for reviewers to determine that the preponderance of the performance data for each of the CEC Preparation Standard as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set demonstrate that the program candidates master the major elements of the CEC Preparation Standards as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set.
    Response: A priority for the next report is to ensure evidence of multiple performance assessments across the developmental progressions of teacher candidates during the program to demonstrate meeting the CEC standards as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set. The orientation toward performance-based data will require thorough discussion among the Special Education faculty and a review and re-design of current assessments. A focus will be on the re-alignment of standards and elements as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum knowledge and skills set and re-design of rubric descriptors to measure quality teacher candidate behaviors.

Math Education (STEP and MA – Reviewer Comments are identical for both reports)

  1. Although the program has exhausted the time limit to submit a Revised Report, CAEP and NCTM have concurred to allow the program additional time to make the required revisions necessary to receive national recognition. This decision was made because the program has made progress in addressing concerns noted by reviewers in the previous report. Reviewers believe the remaining issues can be remedied within an additional review cycle.

    Response: The Math faculty appreciate the additional time to make revisions and the confidence of the reviewers in the progress of this report. A revised report will be submitted March 15, 2019.

  1. Revise rubrics to remove errors such as stating ‘select 2 problems’ and then later stating there are 3 problems. Create consistency.

    Response: Rubrics will be carefully reviewed and corrected.

  1. Revise new rubrics so that the acceptable level meets the level of performance and competencies in the element and covers all competencies. Make sure that the target levels in each rubric criterion are written in measurable terms. For Assessments 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8: In some rubric components, there is no clear distinction between proficient and target levels of performance. Sometimes elements are fully addressed at the target level only. In many rubric components the proficient level of performance has more detail than the target level. The target level is just a statement of the element.

    Response: Rubrics for key assessments 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 will be reviewed to ensure that the elements cover all competencies. Faculty will focus on addressing target levels in measurable terms and clearly distinguishing between the proficient and target level.

  1. Revise course descriptions for Assessment 2. The lack of detail makes it difficult to determine if the different aspects of the competencies are met. Catalog-like descriptions cannot always convey what candidates learn and do in a course. Two content alignment tables were included. One content alignment table only must be included. Alignment for courses with data were reviewed. Course descriptions addressing competencies must be included in the row where the competency is located. It is difficult for reviewers to check alignment when referred to see descriptions in a different location in the assessment.

    Response: Faculty members used course descriptions to provide information about math content courses, with the intent that they conveyed satisfactory detail about the course objectives. The Math Education faculty member is working closely with the Math Department faculty to ensure that the necessary detail on math content courses is included, so that the course description provides detail about mathematical concept, as well practices and problem-solving ability.

  1. Assessment 2 does not follow the NCTM CAEP Standards (2012) Step-by-Step Guide for Documenting Course Grades as an Assessment of Candidate Content Knowledge available on the NCTM website ( Data Table C is missing which outlines Graduate program transcript analysis results.

    Response: Faculty appreciate the direction to the NCTM CAEP Standards Guide for standard 2. Math and Math Education faculty have collaborated to carefully review and complete the guide for documenting candidate knowledge, along with Data Table C, for graduate program transcript analysis. Faculty look forward to a successful resubmission in March.

TESOL CAGs classified as Add-on

Two reports were initially submitted for TESOL MA and CAGs. Between the original submission and the response to conditions, the TESOL CAGs was revised from a 24 to a 15 credit program, in order to more closely match credit requirements at other local institutions. The TESOL CAGs was then classified as an add-on program, which was not required to submit a SPA report — (email communication from Banhi Battacharya (1/25/19).

The EPP followed up with Marie Irving of NYSED, who stated that:

Adelphi’s CAGs program is an Advanced Certificate program. It is required by regulation to be constructed using courses that are part of a registered master’s degree program in order to carry credit. This regulatory requirement would make the courses in the CAGs program the same as the ones offered in the MA in TESOL program, so the SPA review of the TESOL program includes the CAGs program. Since this is the case, the CAGs program would not need a separate SPA review; it was reviewed as part of the MA in TESOL program. Any findings from the SPA review of the MA in TESOL would also apply to the CAGs program. — (email 2/1/19)

Follow Adelphi Education at: