CAEP Standard 3 – Candidate Quality, Recruitment and Selectivity


Standard 3.1

The core values have emphasized our commitment to scholarship and inclusion of diverse populations in our programs and to partners serving diverse populations. The University is equally committed to recruitment of academically strong and diverse students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. For example, Adelphi has been designated as a Latino-serving Institution. Currently, the University-wide system in place involves data reviewed by a Liaison Council from a “recruitment funnel” that serves to improve recruitment ‘conversion’ strategies from inquiry to marketing to application to enrollment. Technology systems include SLATE that academic advisors and program directors in the EPP were trained to use in 2015-16. The EPP has worked with the University Communications to design direct marketing “message maps”, to target professionals and career-changers that includes language that is inclusive of diverse populations. These are supported by “pillars” of proof for claims as part of an annual marketing plan that is semester-based and program-specific. Out of this work has come media and social media campaigns for our programs.

We are deepening our efforts to recommend more effective recruitment strategies within the EPP, submitting a phase-in plan for Standard 3.1 to construct a monitoring data table of applicants, admissions, and enrollment, disaggregated by program and relevant demographics, to develop a system for data use in the planning and modification of recruitment strategies, and to identify and meet employment opportunities in districts, schools and regions—particularly those in high need. The work on this began in Summer 2018 with the collection of data and creation of the table, in collaboration with our University Admissions Office and Office of Research, Assessment and Planning (ORAP). 3.1.1 Applicants By Programs Data depicts 2017-18 data for initial and/or advanced programs by gender, ethnicity, citizenship, geomarket and native language. The applicant profile for initial programs across the EPP that year included 60% self-identified females, 46% White, 94% U.S. citizens, 41% from Long Island (20% from New York City), and 81% native English speakers. Comparable figures were noted for all demographics for advanced program applicants. 3.1.2 Admissions By Programs Data summarizes the statistics for 2017-18 by the same demographic characteristics for the initial programs. There are some noteworthy differences in percentages between the two charts that can lead to program action in the phase-in plan. For example, the percentage of admitted White applicants is 59%, which is 13% more than the overall applicant pool. It will be important for the EPP to pursue the reasons for such differences. 3.1.3 Enrollment By Programs Data offers demographic data for the same academic year and the statistics are roughly comparable to the applicant but for two categories: 49% were Long Island enrolled candidates and 79% were native English speakers. 3.1.4 Application Rejections By Programs Data summarizes comparable demographic categories for 2017-18 to the other charts and, in many respects, reflects proportions in line with the applicants, admits, and enrolled data. However, 19% of the white applicants were rejected whereas double that number were rejected of Black/African American applicants. These differences are important to pursue in the phase-in plan, as well, in order to develop program and cross-program actions. The EPP is addressing equity and access for a funded residency program, for example, but will also backward map to recruitment and marketing of the program. This is addressed at length in Standard 5 as part of program actions.

During fall 2018, the faculty identified recruitment strategies of diverse candidates. Both the table and the recruitment strategies by program are included in the 3.1.5 Phase in Plans for Standard 3.1. The EPP will tie the two together in an effort to use detailed data to refine and direct our recruitment as well as the work to identify employment opportunities in the region in consultation with our Office of Careers and Professional Development. This part of the 3.1.5 Phase in Plans for Standard 3.1 begun at the Spring 2019 retreat where faculty were asked to consider the recommendation of recruitment strategies based on current marketing and related program enrollments. Marketing that currently emphasizes urban environments, for example, was presented. 3.1.6 Program Actions for Recruitment is a collation of the recommendations that resulted from the EPP faculty.

When asked about recommendations to strengthen our marketing and recruitment strategies, four programs addressed recruitment from diverse communities, including career changers, and highlighted the commitment to programs, curriculum and research focusing on the Unit’s Core Values. A part of this was the focus on the Manhattan Center for recruitment of diverse populations. Creating “pipelines” for entry were recommended by program faculty, as well. Branding of the programs was a particular concern for two of the programs’ faculty, emphasizing social justice and the residency programs. Marketing of undergraduates was noted by two programs, and three emphasized greater strength/presence on the University website and social media—particularly for graduate programs. Two of the programs addressed the creation of interdisciplinary or broader areas of focus (including online offerings) that lead to multiple certifications and/or other educational professions. Faculty research was emphasized as a part of the recruitment and marketing strategy by several of the programs. EPP faculty in several programs proposed that there should be greater knowledge about the programs, on the one hand, and marketing strategies, on the other. One program highlighted how the partnerships with schools can be effective with regard to marketing and recruitment efforts as well as hiring.

The EPP faculty also addressed what they see as gaps in the efforts to recruit, admit and enroll candidates. It was noted that the faculty attend open houses, promoting programs through workshops and other professional development opportunities. However, there is a gap between students who confirm attendance at open houses and other functions then fail to show up, one program noting that follow-up interviews can help with this. Other program faculty described the desire to be more involved in the outreach prior to applications being completed (beyond open houses on campus). There were comments made about having specific individuals to contact and that the website should help to support this.

While the EPP faculty described having an efficient turn around system—and partnered with All Campus and have a lot of communications during the inquiry to acceptance process—even greater communication with marketing and admissions is encouraged. One program faculty noted the importance of going completely digital with the application review process, as well as the inquiries and recording of application materials. If applicants are already certified, this should be a part of the SLATE electronic system. It was noted as a way of speeding up and increasing access on the part of faculty. It was also noted that applicants may have anxiety about taking the standardized tests that are now required and outreach by faculty might help to avoid postponement. Finances and financial need were repeatedly pointed to as a hindrance, particularly the deposit now required. Assistantships were highlighted as a possible solution.

A particularly important strategy is the creation of a “pipeline” for those entering initial programs and going on into advanced certification professions (including, for example, literacy and early childhood special education). Other strategies that are tied to the recruitment of potential candidates include the development of partner grants that increase access and build the capacity and credentials of community members included in 2.1.3 Partner Activities that Demonstrate Co-Construction.

The EPP also looks to systematically review the employment possibilities through its partner schools as well as throughout the New York region. Since 2014, hiring fairs have been held and contributed to the recruitment goals for the University, which are established annually. Because the recruitment season begins in December of the fall semester, we have determined that two recruitment fairs in Fall and Spring are needed to ready our students to successfully manage the application process, particularly for the NYC Department of Education where there are currently 60,000 school professional positions available to program completers. To improve candidate’s familiarity with the NYCDOE system and to support their employment success rates, the EPP’s dean instituted the Explore NYC Schools initiative. Students visit NYC public schools, with which we are partnered, for a day-long immersion. Schools are identified as high-need for hiring. In Fall 2018, the EPP, in addition to supporting the NYCDOE recruitment initiatives; held a fair of Long Island and New York City district partners and non-traditional educational providers. A Spring Fair is scheduled for April 9, 2019 and in collaboration with our clinical partners we are scheduling fairs and job-readiness experiential learning opportunities to meet the needs of our teacher candidates in field-placements and who are working.

Standard 3.2

We have followed New York State on the required grade point average for admission of teacher candidates of 3.0 since 2016, implementing a New York State requirement of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) for entry into graduate education programs that same year. There is a 15% leeway for the 3.0 GPA. The New York State Board of Regents issued a decision in December 2015 that applicants to graduate level programs “must have taken the GRE or a substantially equivalent admission examination.” In January 2017, the Board clarified that the GRE is not required for teachers and school administrators that are already certified and seeking advanced certification. Adelphi is complying with this state regulation through requiring the GRE or equivalent for students applying to enter a Master’s Program. Applicants to in-service Master’s program, who hold teaching certification and previously completed a Bachelor’s degree, may submit evidence of a successful edTPA exam in lieu of the GRE, a procedure adopted by SUNY schools. STEP students complete a five-year, combined Bachelor’s/Master’s program. These students are required to take the SAT or ACT upon admission to the 5-year program.

The required cohort average of a 3.0 has been adhered to in parallel with the University requirements. 3.2.1 Candidate Admission GPA at Entry breaks down the grade point averages of newly-admitted candidates for initial and advanced programs for 2015-18. The average for newly admitted candidates into the initial programs was 3.27 in 2015-16 (N=157), 3.3 in 2016-17 (N=202), and 3.32 in 2017-18 (N=176). The highest GPA were teacher candidates in Adolescent Math Education (3.48 to 3.62) and the lowest, Physical Education (2.91 to 3.01). For the advanced programs, the average GPA was 3.40 in 2015-16 (N=47), 3.45 in 2016-17 (N=69), and 3.46 in 2017-18 (N=76) with Childhood Special Education candidates coming in with the highest GPA (3.56 to 3.64) and Early Childhood Special Education, the lowest (3.26 to 3.32). SAT or ACT scores are required for admission for undergraduates, part of a holistic evaluation for acceptance. The GRE has not had a minimum score at the University or the EPP as there is no required score on that nationally-normed exam with New York State’s requirement and we are therefore following CAEP’s guideline of the top 50 percent for incoming teacher candidates. 3.2.2 Candidate GRE, SAT, ACT and Praxis Scores Data standardized test scores of the GRE (Analytic Writing, Mathematics, and Vocabulary) and the SAT (Mathematics and Reading Writing) of admitted applicants for the EPP for 2015-2018. The test scores are broken down by means and percentiles for each area of the tests and compared to national norms. For the GRE-A, 100% of the candidates (7 in 2015-16 and 5 in 2017-18) were at or above the national norm and 68% (of 25) in 2017-18. For the GRE-M, 57% were at or above the national norm (of 7 candidates) in 2015-16, 20% were at or above the norm in 2016-17 (of 5) and 12% were at or above the norm (of 25) in 2017-18. The GRE-V was 57%, 60% and 40%, respectively, for 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 for the same number of candidates in those years. The mathematics scores on the GRE are an area for deeper inquiry as they reflect the challenges the EPP has with the mathematics scores on the CST. The SAT-M scores for candidates, on the other hand, were 75% (of 55) at or above the national norm in 2015-16, 68% (of 78) in 2016-17, and 72% (of 60). The SAT-RW percentages at or above the national norm were 71%, 41% and 70% for each of the three years and for the same number of candidates in each of those years.

Standard 3.3

The EPP has demonstrated a commitment to assessing applicants’ and candidates’ attributes and dispositions, attempting to align these assessment measures to its Core Values for over a decade. The development and validation of the dispositions assessment undertaken through 2017 is described with summary statistics in 3.3.1 Report: 1st Validation Process and Outcomes for Dispositions Summer 2014 to Spring 2017. Pilot data for the assessment was collected in 2014 with revisions that resulted in two instruments: 3.3.1.1 Classroom Disposition Instrument and 3.3.1.2 Field Disposition Instrument as well as undertaken validation studies of both with, for example, the Danielson Framework, through 2017. The argument through an internal validity study conducted in 2015 was that there were three factors: fairness/growth mindset, respect/responsibility, and positivity/reflectiveness. A reliability study was also conducted on these three factors. Decisions were made about where the dispositions for classrooms and fieldwork should be administered in the programs (summarized in the 3.3.1 Report). However, the difficulties raised by these prior research efforts were several, resulting in 3.3.3 Phase In Plans for Standard 3.3 that included the treatment of the dispositions forms as separate in classroom, fieldwork and student teaching as well as some of the scoring of the items as recently as Fall 2018 3.3.2 Report: 2nd Validation Process and Outcomes for Dispositions Fall 2018. The factors established previously have not held up with subsequent analyses and the questions have not been clearly established as assessing behavior versus perceptions of candidates. The EPP is still researching its effectiveness in predicting teacher candidate performance in the programs on other measures, including the Danielson Framework and the edTPA measures. More than this, the plan is to use it as an effective tool for providing teacher candidates feedback about non-academic factors that we see as part of the Core Values.

Standard 3.4

The EPP faculty value the close relationships with the candidates each candidate is assigned a faculty advisor to monitor their progress each semester. When appropriate, the program director is brought into the discussion of a candidate’s progress including the potential for academic probation. The process is partially an online one with evidence from measures of candidate progress sent to chairs of departments on a semester basis. Part of the effort to support candidates includes the monitoring across the programs, represented as a table offered as 3.4.1 Candidate Progression Data which includes three phases of our programs in the EPP, dating back from 2006, which include “Induction” (Transition Point 1) when teacher candidates are admitted into the program (SAT or GRE, entry grade point average, and for the graduate programs, an admissions rubric that involved an evaluation of letters of recommendation, personal essay, life experience, and interview, given as 3.4.2 Admissions Criteria and Rubrics by Programs “Exploration/Synthesis” (Transition Point 2) with entry into clinical experiences (grades with content and pedagogy courses, classroom disposition, use of technology, overall grade point average, and any academic warnings or probation); “Reflective Practice” (Transition Point 3) during clinical experiences (Danielson Framework, Field-based disposition for field and student teaching); and “Professional Practice” (Transition Point 4) with completion requirements (certification exams including the CST, EAS and edTPA, and mandated workshops). The required rubric scores, test scores and grades/grade point averages are noted at the top of 3.4.1 Candidate Progression Data.

The criteria for target completion of Transition Point 1 reflected the Admissions criteria described above; the criteria for target completion of Transition Point 2 are the required grades in content and pedagogy courses of 3.0, classroom dispositions score, technology proficiency, cumulative GPA from designated courses, and clearance of any academic warnings or probation; target criteria for Transition Point 3 are successful completion of student teaching and the related seminar, and field based disposition scores; and target for Transition Point 4 are passing of the certification exams and mandated workshops. It is apparent that the potential for success increased with the passage of each transition point.

Standard 3.5

The Transition Point 4, “Professional Practice,” is summarized in 3.4.1 Candidate Progression Data and requires successful completion of the certification exams by teacher candidates prior to recommendation by the program for completion/graduation and ultimately, to New York State for certification: the CST, EAS and edTPA. The cutoff passing scores for each are given in 1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data, 1.1.4 Content Specialty Test (CST) Candidate Data and the number and percentage of teacher candidates completing these requirements for certification from 2015-18 are given in the same tables. The analyses of these data are offered extensively in the documentation related to Standard 1. Because the EPP saw the progression review through the programs as resulting in the strongest possible group of teacher candidates left to complete the programs by Transition Point 4, 90% was established as the criterion for target for successful completion. All programs achieved this target each of the three years that data were kept.

Standard 3.6

While many of our courses in the programs include professional codes of ethics, expectations, standard, laws and policies, New York State has mandated workshops required for certification that covers these areas in three realms: Child Abuse Prevention Identification and Reporting, the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), and School Violence Prevention and Intervention. Documentation of these is given in 3.6.1 NYS Certification Requirements. These areas are also included in the certification exams for New York State, the EAS (specifically, the items pertaining to teacher responsibilities and school-home relationships) and reflections on teaching on the edTPA (Rubrics 10 and 15). The teacher candidate performance on these elements of the exams are given in 1.1.2 edTPA Candidate Data1.1.3 Educating All Students (EAS) Candidate Data, 1.1.4 Content Specialty Test (CST) Candidate Data with evidence that is analyzed extensively.

Standard A.3 Candidate Quality and Selectivity (Advanced Programs)

See A.3.1.5 Phase In Plan for Standard A.3.1

See A.3.2.3 Phase In Plan for Standard A.3.2

See A.3.3.3 Phase In Plan for Standard A.3.3

See A.3.4.1 Phase In Plan for Standard A.3.4

 
Follow Adelphi Education at: