University of Colorado Denver Higher Learning Commission
School of Education and Human Development
Initial Professional Teacher Education Program
IPTE Program Educational Goals & Student Enrollment Data
Program’s Educational Goals: The Initial Professional Teacher Education (IPTE) program is
committed to contributing to the mission of the School of Education & Human Development by
developing teacher leaders who have the ability, dispositions, and drive to create meaningful, dynamic
and engaging learning environments that support the achievement of ALL students in urban and diverse
schools. We collaboratively engage in this endeavor daily with our K-12 partner educators who work
closely with us through the UCD Professional Development School Network comprised of 30 diverse and
urban schools across 6 districts in the Denver metro region. Ultimately our goal is that all teacher
candidates—whether elementary or secondary teachers-- each will be able to have a significant positive
impact in urban and diverse educational school settings, and as teacher leaders will act with a sense of
urgency to support equity in education for all children.
Our program is finalizing a major program redesign initiative that began 3 years ago, and has resulted in
the launch of the new Urban Community Teacher Education (UCTE) program summer 2010. Our student
outcome data in this report will reflect data related to the original IPTE program, but aspects of our newly
redesigned program will be addressed at the conclusion of this report.
IPTE Program Conceptual Framework: The conceptual framework of the IPTE program provides not
only a vision for the program but also the essential framework or perspective from which the entire
program is developed. The IPTE program is conceptualized through several Teaching Roles and
associated Essential Questions. These Teaching Roles and Essential Questions represent an educational
model that maintains that teaching requires the development of complex, connected knowledge, skills and
dispositions regarding students’ learning and well-being as well as ongoing professional learning,
reflection, and renewal among educators and K-12 schools.





Teacher as Scholar: How do I use and develop knowledge and critical inquiry to ensure
scholarly competence in my work with learners and their families and communities?
Teacher as Professional How do I engage in reflective, ethical, moral, and legal teaching
practice and inquiry such that I draw from and contribute to the profession and to the democratic
ideal?
Teacher as Leader How do I engage in or lead school change and renewal processes grounded
in the ethics of inquiry, knowledge, competence, caring, and social justice?
Teacher as Student Advocate How can my teaching practices foster learners’ self-advocacy
and ensure equal access to and benefit from quality education?
Teacher as Instructor How can I plan for, differentiate, facilitate, and assess the development
and learning of each student in an environment that affirms equity and diversity?
The Teaching Roles and Essential Questions are based on:

The characteristics of excellent first year teachers as defined by focus groups composed of master
teachers from metropolitan school districts

The Colorado Performance Based Teaching Standards set forth by the Colorado Department of
Education

The goals of the National Network for Educational Renewal

The overall mission of the School of Education and Human Development to prepare leaders for
educational equity

The accreditation standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) as well as affiliated professional organizations such as the Council for Exceptional
Children (CEC), ACEI, and content organizations in English, Social Studies, Math, and Science.
IPTE Program Design & Assessment of Student Performance: In order to prepare teacher candidates to
assume the various Teaching Roles, the program provides multiple learning opportunities that are closely
connected. These include university coursework, school-based internships, and a series of performance
based assessments that require teacher candidates to apply knowledge from their coursework in schoolbased internship settings. All teacher candidates engage in a series of 4 internships from the beginning of
the program to the end of the program while simultaneously taking university courses. All internships
take place in one of the UCD Professional Development Schools. Internships provide teacher candidates
with the opportunity to truly “live the life of a teacher” while learning to assume all of the roles of a
teacher. This experience is so crucial to teacher candidate learning and development that internships
begin even before the university semester with teacher candidates working at their professional
development school 1-2 full weeks before university classes start and often extend beyond the university
semester. It is critical that teacher candidates capitalize on every opportunity to be immersed in the
authentic world of teaching. The term “school internship” was selected to signal a different model of
teacher preparation, one that not only prepares teacher candidates to teach students well in a classroom
but also prepares them to engage in collaborative efforts with adults in the school and community,
especially in school improvement or renewal. During internships, teacher candidates gradually move
from participatory observation of the Teaching Roles to full assumption of the Teaching Roles. By the
end of the internship sequence, teacher candidates are expected to have developed independence in the
Teaching Roles and to have achieved proficiency on all performance-based assessments. In each
professional development school, teacher candidates are supported, mentored, and coached (i.e., provided
with specific feedback) by a university-based site professor, a school-based site coordinator, and their
classroom clinical teacher with whom they are learning to teach. All of these individuals observe and
work with the teacher candidate on a weekly basis throughout their entire program.
Student Enrollment Data:
The IPTE program is both a graduate level and undergraduate level program leading to licensure in
elementary education or secondary education in the major content areas of math, science, social studies,
English, and Foreign Language. Graduate students have already completed a BA and as part of the
admissions process, transcripts are reviewed to ensure that they have the content knowledge necessary for
the subject area they are pursuing to teach prior to admission. Undergraduates complete a major in the
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences connected to the licensure area they are pursuing. Undergraduates
apply to the IPTE program during their junior year either after or while they are taking an early education
internship. Both graduates and undergraduates can begin the program in the fall or spring semester and
follow either 12 or 18 month program plan; thus students complete their licensure program either in May
or December. Because teacher preparation programs in the state of Colorado are held accountable to one
set of performance standards for their program completers (e.g., the Colorado Performance-based
Standards for Teachers), both graduate and undergraduate students must meet the same learning outcomes
and proficiencies in their licensure coursework and internships. Once the licensure program is completed,
graduate students go on to select an MA option to take additional coursework to complete the MA degree.
Student enrollment data of all students enrolled in the program by semester, disaggregated by ethnicity is
below.
Fall 2009 & Spring 2010 Combined IPTE Student Enrollment
REPORTING_ETHNICITY_DESC
AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK, NON-HISPANIC
HISPANIC/CHICANO/MEXICAN
UNKNOWN
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC
Total
Total % Students of Color
Fall 2009
Grad
0
4
2
11
19
191
227
7.49%
Fall 2009
Undergrad
0
2
0
6
1
28
37
21.62%
Spring 2010
Grad
1
5
2
17
20
205
250
10%
Spring 2010
undergrad
0
1
0
7
2
35
45
17.77%
The undergraduate program is a fairly new program (developed in 2004) and we now have strategic
infrastructure and resources in place to begin growing that undergraduate program given the diversity of
teacher candidates we are able to attract through that pipeline, including the April 2010 hiring of a full
time Director of Recruitment and Retention who is developing initiatives to grow and retain that diverse
pipeline. Increasing the number of teacher candidates of color is part of the SEHD Strategic plan in order
to address the critical shortage of teachers of color in K-12 schools in the state and the nation. In Metro
Denver, 42% of the student population are students of color compared with less than 11% teachers of
color.
IPTE Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes: Our national accrediting body, National Accreditation Council for Teacher
Education (NCATE) outlines four broad areas for assessment measures that have guided the development
of student learning outcomes for the IPTE Program.
a) Student Learning Outcome #1:
All teacher candidates have excellent content knowledge related to their teaching discipline.
A. Assessment Method : PLACE or PRAXIS II Examination
1) Sampling: 115graduate students and 21 undergraduate students completed the IPTE
program in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 and thus completed either the Colorado-based
content examination (PLACE) or the national-based content examination (PRAXIS II)
during this time.
2) Data Collection Method: The School of Education and Human Development collects score
reports directly from teacher candidates as they receive them from the testing company.
Teacher candidates are required to submit a copy of their official score report to the
School prior to being able to enroll in the final semester of internships. Scores are
recorded in an ACCESS database.
3) Scoring Method: These state and nationally validated assessments are required by state law
as part of the requirements to receive a teaching license. The assessments are multiple
choice and are aligned to the content knowledge required of teachers to teach in their
particular subject area(s). Teacher candidates have a choice in regards to which exam
they prefer to take as the state of Colorado accepts passing scores from either exam
(except in Foreign Language where only PLACE is accepted). The exam is taken at offsite locations offered by the testing companies and scored independently by those
companies (i.e., ETS for PRAXIS II). The information reported to the university is either
a pass or fail.
4) Results: 100% of all 136 teacher candidates passed the exam.
5) Interpretation of Results: Because it is a state requirement that this exam be passed as a
part of teacher licensure requirements (and for UCD, prior to being able to enroll in the
final semester of internships), we only verify that students have passed the exam,
ensuring that they have sufficient content knowledge for their subject area.
6) Feedback: If a student is struggling to pass the exam (there is not a limit on the number of
times the exam can be taken), students meet with the director of teacher education to
discuss areas of content they are weak in and identify strategies, and sometimes other
content coursework, they should pursue in order to successfully pass the exam.
7) Use of Information: For undergraduate students, the School of Education and Human
Development collaborates closely with the College of Liberal Arts & Science faculty to
more closely examine subscore data from the elementary content exams teacher
candidates take in order to strengthen the broad content preparation for students that
includes mathematics, language arts, social studies, the arts, and sciences. For example,
one trend we have noticed over the past several semesters lower subscale scores in
mathematics. Our SEHD math education faculty is now working with CLAS
mathematics faculty to develop a new sequence of math content courses for
undergraduate elementary math licensure students to increase the quality and amount of
math content preparation undergraduate teacher candidates receive. We are beginning to
put this process into place for the secondary undergraduate licensure tracks as well.
b) Student Learning Outcome #2:
All teacher candidates have the ability to plan effective instruction that meets the needs of
all diverse learners.
A. Assessment Method #1: IPTE Internship Evaluation
Description: For each of the four internships (IPTE 4/5910, IPTE 4/5911, IPTE 4/5912,
IPTE 4/5913), a very clearly delineated set of performance indicators are articulated that
guide teacher candidate performance in their internship. The performance indicators are
organized according to the teaching roles of the conceptual framework: Teacher as
Scholar, Teacher as Instructor, Teacher as Learner Advocate, Teacher as Professional,
Teacher as Leader. The performance indicators grow in complexity and skill with each
progressive internship, indicating that teacher candidate performance will also grow in
each successive internship moving from the ability to approximate effective practice with
smaller groups of students and with significant support from their clinical teacher,
university site professor, and school-based site coordinator to being able to independently
and consistently perform complex teaching practices with an entire classroom of students.
1) Sampling: The following data is for Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Graduate Students
Undergraduate Students
Internship
# of Teacher
Internship
# of Teacher
Candidates
Candidates
IPTE 5910
122
*4910 not included in data analysis; see
explanation below table
IPTE 5911
90
IPTE 4911
30
IPTE 5912
104
IPTE 4912
23
IPTE 5913
115
IPTE 4913
21
*IPTE 4910 is an early internship for undergraduate students completed prior to
admission to the IPTE program. It does not utilize the same model of professional
development schools and does not have the same learning outcomes as IPTE 5910
because IPTE 4910 students are not concurrently in education courses in the program.
We structure the IPTE 4910 internship in this way because it is essential that
undergraduates experience an internship in schools prior to committing to teacher
licensure, making sure that being a teacher is a career they want to pursue and that it is
the right match for their knowledge, skills, and dispositions since their BA/BS major must
be specific to teacher licensure.
2) Data Collection Method: Two weeks prior to the completion of an internship, a teacher
candidate completes a self-evaluation of the performance indicators related to their
specific internship and provides concrete evidence (i.e., lesson plans, K-12 student work
samples, etc.) to support their self-evaluation of their performance. Then the university
site professor, in collaboration with the school-based site coordinator and the teacher
candidate’s clinical teacher, validate the self-evaluation, making adjustments to the selfevaluation based on their expert observation of teacher candidate performance.
3) Scoring Method: Each performance indicator is scored as either proficient performance
met or not met.
4) Results: Only performance indicators from the role of Teacher as Instructor align with this
student outcome and are reported here:
Graduate Student Results
Internship
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
IPTE 5910
117
IPTE 5911
87
IPTE 5912
101
IPTE 5913
113
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
96%
96%
97%
98%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
5
3
3
2
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
4%
4%
3%
2%
Undergraduate Student Results
Internship
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
IPTE 4911
27
IPTE 4912
21
IPTE 4913
20
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
92%
96%
99%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
3
2
1
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators under
“Teacher as
Instructor”)
8%
4%
1%
5) Interpretation of Results: Over the course of the four internships, teacher candidates are
able to successfully increase their ability to effectively plan instruction that meets the
needs of all diverse learners in the classroom on a consistent basis with increasing
independence.
6) Feedback: Students meet with their site and university supervisors to receive feedback on
their performance. Aggregated data from the internship rubric is compiled and reviewed
regularly by IPTE faculty.
7) Use of Information: Aggregate information on each individual performance indicator on
the rubric is analyzed by IPTE faculty and Professional Development School faculty to
revise and refine course content and internship experiences that will continue to support
the successful development of teacher candidate performance.
B. Assessment Method #2: Student Academic Performance Sample
Description: All teacher candidates must develop a curriculum unit of instruction to be
implemented in their final internship (IPTE 4/5913). By completing this unit, teacher candidates
demonstrate their ability to effectively develop a longer unit of instruction, typically lasting 3-5
weeks, carefully aligned to K-12 standards of learning and includes pre-, post-, and formative
assessments that demonstrate impact of K-12 student learning based on the planning and delivery of
instruction by the teacher candidate.
1) Sampling: 115 graduate teacher candidates and 21 undergraduate students completed the
Student Academic Performance Sample during Fall 2009 and Spring 2010.
2) Data Collection Method: While engaging in the final internship, teacher candidates
develop a longer unit of instruction, typically lasting 3-5 weeks, carefully aligned to K-12
standards of learning and includes pre-, post-, and formative assessments that demonstrate
positive impact on K-12 student learning based on the planning and delivery of instruction by
the teacher candidate. The unit is created during the SPED 4/5021 Pedagogy for Diversity
course and submitted at the completion of the IPTE 4/5913 internship, including all lesson
plans; pre-, post- and formative assessments and data; interpretation of K-12 student learning
based on assessment data; and professional reflection on implications for teacher candidates’
future planning and teaching.
3) Scoring Method: University faculty instructing the SPED 4/5021 Pedagogy for Diversity
course use an extensive rubric with clearly delineated elements to be assessed on the Student
Academic Performance Sample. For each element, a score of 4 (element exceeded), 3
(element met), 2 (element partially met), or 1(element not met) is given.
4) Results: (only those elements of the rubric related to effective planning of instruction are
listed here based on this student outcome)
Graduate Student Data
Element
Range of Instructional Models; Variety of activities, assignments, and
resources
Lesson and Unit Structure
Meeting the Diverse Needs of the Students
Undergraduate Student Data
Element
Range of Instructional Models; Variety of activities, assignments, and
resources
Lesson and Unit Structure
Meeting the Diverse Needs of the Students
Avg. Score
4.0
3.72
3.93
Avg. Score
4.0
3.77
3.92
5) Interpretation of Results: All teacher candidates, both graduate and undergraduate students,
were able to plan effective instruction that met the needs of all diverse learners at a proficient
level or above.
6) Feedback: Teacher candidates receive extensive feedback during the planning of their unit
from their course instructor, clinical teacher, site professor, and site coordinator. This
feedback is used formatively to plan the unit, but teacher candidates must be able to
independently and consistently implement all instruction and assessment of K-12 student
performance throughout the unit.
7) Use of Information: Aggregate data on every element of the rubric related to this
assessment is reviewed by IPTE faculty instructing the 2-course pedagogy sequence and
adjustments in course content and instructional methods are made. These faculty also
collaborate closely with Professional Development Schools to highlight any adjustments
made.
c) Student Learning Outcome #3:
Teacher candidates will be able to demonstrate their ability to positively effect K-12 student
learning.
. Assessment Method #1 Student Academic Performance Sample
Description: All teacher candidates must develop a curriculum unit of instruction to be
implemented in their final internship (IPTE 4/5913). By completing this unit, teacher candidates
demonstrate their ability to effectively develop a longer unit of instruction, typically lasting 3-5
weeks, carefully aligned to K-12 standards of learning and includes pre-, post-, and formative
assessments that demonstrate impact of K-12 student learning based on the planning and delivery
of instruction by the teacher candidate.
1) Sampling: 115 graduate teacher candidates and 21 undergraduate students completed the
Student Academic Performance Sample during Fall 2009 and Spring 2010.
2) Data Collection Method: While engaging in the final internship, teacher candidates
develop a longer unit of instruction, typically lasting 3-5 weeks, carefully aligned to K-12
standards of learning and includes pre-, post-, and formative assessments that demonstrate
positive impact on K-12 student learning based on the planning and delivery of instruction by
the teacher candidate. The unit is created during the SPED 4/5021 Pedagogy for Diversity
course and submitted at the completion of the IPTE 4/5913 internship, including all lesson
plans; pre-, post- and formative assessments and data; interpretation of K-12 student learning
based on assessment data; and professional reflection on implications for teacher candidates’
future planning and teaching.
3) Scoring Method: University faculty instructing the SPED 4/5021 Pedagogy for Diversity
course use an extensive rubric with clearly delineated elements to be assessed on the Student
Academic Performance Sample. For each element, a score of 4 (element exceeded), 3
(element met), 2 (element partially met), or 1(element not met) is given.
4) Results: (only those elements of the rubric related to teacher candidates’ ability to
positively impact student learning are listed here based on this student outcome)
Graduate Students
Element
Internal Alignment of Assessments
Clarity of Criteria, Standards for Performance, Directions, and Questions for
the Post- and Pre- Assessments
Assessment Variety; Pre- and Post- Assessments Reflect K-12 Student
Learning
Avg. Score
3.94
3.92
3.95
Analysis of Data on Student Learning During Unit Implementation
Data Interpretation is Substantive and Addresses All Students
Implications for future instruction to support student learning
Undergraduate Students
Element
Internal Alignment of Assessments
Clarity of Criteria, Standards for Performance, Directions, and Questions for
the Post- and Pre- Assessments
Assessment Variety; Pre- and Post- Assessments Reflect K-12 Student
Learning
Analysis of Data on Student Learning During Unit Implementation
Data Interpretation is Substantive and Addresses All Students
Implications for future instruction to support student learning
3.85
3.79
3.88
Avg. Score
3.93
4.00
4.00
3.93
3.80
3.73
5) Interpretation of Results: All teacher candidates were able to effectively plan and deliver
instruction that positively impacted K-12 student learning at a proficient level and above.
6) Feedback: Teacher candidates receive extensive feedback during the planning of their unit
from their course instructor, clinical teacher, site professor, and site coordinator. This
feedback is used formatively to design the unit, but teacher candidates must be able to
independently and consistently implement all instruction and assessment of K-12 student
performance throughout the unit.
7) Use of Information: Aggregate data on every element of the rubric related to this
assessment is reviewed by IPTE faculty instructing the 2-course pedagogy sequence and
adjustments in course content and instructional methods are made. These faculty also
collaborate closely with Professional Development Schools to highlight any adjustments
made.
d. Student Learning Outcome #4:
Teacher candidates are able to proficiently perform the multiple professional
responsibilities and instructional practices of a teacher in clinical practice.
A. Assessment Method : IPTE Internship Evaluation
Description: For each of the four internships (IPTE 4/5910, IPTE 4/5911, IPTE 4/5912, IPTE
4/5913), a very clearly delineated set of performance indicators are articulated that guide
teacher candidate performance in their internship. The performance indicators are organized
according to the teaching roles of the conceptual framework: Teacher as Scholar, Teacher as
Instructor, Teacher as Learner Advocate, Teacher as Professional, Teacher as Leader. The
performance indicators grow in complexity and skill with each progressive internship,
indicating that teacher candidate performance will also grow in each successive internship
moving from the ability to approximate effective practice with smaller groups of students and
with significant support from their clinical teacher, university site professor, and school-based
site coordinator to being able to independently and consistently perform complex teaching
practices with an entire classroom of students.
1) 1) Sampling: The following data is for Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Graduate Students
Undergraduate Students
Internship
# of Teacher
Internship
# of Teacher
Candidates
Candidates
IPTE 5910
122
*4910 not included in data analysis; see
explanation below table
IPTE 5911
90
IPTE 4911
30
IPTE 5912
104
IPTE 4912
23
IPTE 5913
115
IPTE 4913
21
*IPTE 4910 is an early internship for undergraduate students completed prior to admission
to the IPTE program. It does not utilize the same model of professional development
schools and does not have the same learning outcomes as IPTE 5910 because IPTE 4910
students are not concurrently in education courses in the program. We structure the
IPTE 4910 internship in this way because it is essential that undergraduates experience
an internship in schools prior to committing to teacher licensure, making sure that being
a teacher is a career they want to pursue and that it is the right match for their
knowledge, skills, and dispositions since their BA/BS major must be specific to teacher
licensure.
2) Data Collection Method: Two weeks prior to the completion of an internship, a teacher
candidate completes a self-evaluation of the performance indicators related to their
specific internship and provides concrete evidence (i.e., lesson plans, K-12 student work
samples, etc.) to support their self-evaluation of their performance. Then the university
site professor, in collaboration with the school-based site coordinator and the teacher
candidate’s clinical teacher, validate the self-evaluation, making adjustments to the selfevaluation based on their expert observation of teacher candidate performance. A teacher
candidate must be able to achieve 80% or more of the performance indicators listed for
an individual internship in order to pass and move on to the next internship.
3) Scoring Method: Each performance indicator is scored as either proficient performance
met or not met.
4) Results: Graduate Students
% of Teacher
Internship 1: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring Candidates scoring
IPTE 5910
Proficient
Proficient
(averaged across
(averaged across
all performance
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
specific role)
Scholar
115
94%
Instructor
117
96%
Learner
116
95%
Advocate
Leader
114
93%
Professional
119
97%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
7
5
6
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
6%
4%
5%
8
3
7%
3%
Graduate Students
Internship 2: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 5911
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
87
Instructor
87
Learner
89
Advocate
Leader
86
Professional
87
Graduate Students
Internship 3: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 5912
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
102
Instructor
101
Learner
102
Advocate
Leader
100
Professional
103
Graduate Students
Internship 4: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 5913
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
114
Instructor
113
Learner
113
Advocate
Leader
112
Professional
114
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
96%
96%
99%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
3
3
1
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
4%
4%
1%
95%
96%
4
3
5%
4%
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
98%
97%
98%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
2
3
2
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
2%
3%
2%
96%
99%
4
1
4%
1%
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
99%
98%
98%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
1
2
2
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
1%
2%
2%
98%
99%
3
1
2%
1%
Undergraduate Students
Internship 2: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 4911
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
28
Instructor
27
Learner
28
Advocate
Leader
28
Professional
27
Undergraduate Students
Internship 3: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 4912
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
21
Instructor
22
Learner
21
Advocate
Leader
21
Professional
22
Undergraduate Students
Internship 4: # of Teacher
Candidates scoring
IPTE 4913
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
TEACHING indicators for each
ROLE:
specific role)
Scholar
20
Instructor
20
Learner
20
Advocate
Leader
20
Professional
20
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
93%
92%
93%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
2
3
2
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
7%
8%
7%
93%
92%
2
3
7%
8%
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
95%
96%
95%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
2
1
2
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
5%
4%
5%
95%
96%
2
1
5%
4%
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
97%
97%
97%
# of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
1
1
1
% of Teacher
Candidates scoring
Not Proficient
(averaged across
all performance
indicators for each
specific role)
3%
3%
3%
97%
97%
1
1
3%
3%
5) Interpretation of Results: Over the course of the four internships, teacher candidates are
able to successfully increase their ability to proficiently demonstrate the multiple
responsibilities and instructional practices of an effective teacher on a consistent and
independent basis.
6) Feedback: Students meet with their site and university supervisors to receive feedback on
their performance weekly. Aggregated data from the internship rubric is compiled and
reviewed regularly by IPTE faculty.
7) Use of Information: Aggregate information on each individual performance indicator on
the rubric is analyzed by IPTE faculty and Professional Development School faculty to
revise and refine course content and internship experiences that will continue to support
the successful development of teacher candidate performance.
Redesigned Urban Community Teacher Education Program
In 2007, faculty from the IPTE and Special Education departments in the SEHD wrote and received a
federal professional development grant to increase the ability of teacher candidates to better meet the
needs of increasing K-12 student populations who were culturally and linguistically diverse. As we work
so closely with K-12 schools and teachers through our Professional Development School (PDS) network
in the teacher preparation program, collectively we continued to see the work of our teachers become
more and more complex in being able to support the success of their ever-increasingly diverse students
population. Although many of our program assessments seemingly identify teacher candidates
performing overwhelmingly proficient in these areas, our teacher candidates were self-reporting in
internship surveys that they struggled with meeting the needs of diverse student populations. K-12
principals and district leaders also overwhelmingly reported this as an area of need for their practicing
teachers to develop their knowledge and skills as 20 principals and several district leaders in our PDS
network wrote letters of support for the grant.
Once we received the grant, we began with base-line data collection by conducting nearly 20 focus
groups of current and former teacher candidates (3 years out), site professors, site coordinators, district
leaders, principals, diverse students and their families. A common theme we uncovered was an inability
of our teacher candidates (current and graduates) having the ability to understand complex factors of race,
language, socioeconomics, and disability at a deep level that would allow them to design responsive
instruction to meet their needs. A second theme was that teacher candidates themselves did not express
confidence in being able to meet these needs. In addition, the grant provided an opportunity for national
urban teacher education consultants to review our program syllabi, visit our professional development
schools, and speak with students and faculty with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of the program
as we moved towards redesign. The weaknesses they identified included a very limited conceptualization
of diversity and equity in the curriculum as well as a near-absence of community based learning
experiences outside of PDSs. In addition they identified our PDS network of schools as a stellar model of
clinical teacher preparation, but that it was sorely being underutilized by the School with tenure track
faculty not engaging in the work of initial teacher education.
With ongoing professional learning and intense work on the part of university and K-12 faculty, we
designed the Urban Community Teacher Education program with a new conceptual framework, three
newly designed core courses to significantly deepen teacher candidate conceptualization of equity and
diversity as it applied to themselves and the context within which they teach. New community-based
internship experiences were also added. Lastly, course delivery was designed mostly as hybrid in smaller,
blocked courses so that the curriculum could be treated in a more developmental manner.