Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice – The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development.
Partnerships for Clinical Preparation
2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements for clinical preparation, including technology-based collaborations, and shared responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships for clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation and share accountability for candidate outcomes.
2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support and retain high quality clinical educators, both EPP and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates’ development and P-12 student learning and development. In collaboration with their partners, providers use multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based applications to establish, maintain and refine criteria for selection, professional development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical educators in all clinical placement settings.
2.3 The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, coherence and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students’ learning and development. Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structured to have multiple, performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students.
COMPONENT 2.1 PARTNERSHIPS FOR CLINICAL PREPARATION
Without the support and efforts of effective partnerships, it is impossible to offer quality programming for a statewide teacher licensure program. The collaborations and partnerships that are formed during a teacher candidates’ internship and clinical experiences are vital to the program’s success. The COEPD utilizes a variety of partnership agreements including, but not limited to, the Educational Personnel Preparation Advisory Committee (EPPAC), the Professional Development School (PDS) Partnership, the Content Specialization Liaison Committee (CSLCITE) and the June Harless Center for Rural Educational Research and Development. County and school partnerships have been purposefully established to focus on benefits for teachers, administrators and candidates. The goal of the work is ultimately higher student achievement as a direct result of highly effective teachers and highly motivated and engaged students in relevant and rigorous assignments. Conversations held at the various meetings regarding decisions about entrance, progression and graduation from the teacher education program reinforces the coherence and accountability for candidate outcomes.
The EPP, school partners, and other professional community members assist in designing, delivering, and evaluating field experiences and clinical practice. As the major stakeholder advisory committee for the EPP, EPPAC gives advice regarding curriculum, field experiences and clinical practice, and assessment practices. EPPAC meets each semester and discusses educational issues, completes surveys, reviews the conceptual frameworks and program courses, and advises on selected topics (see EPPAC). As another layer of communication with this valuable partner, the COEPD developed the EPPAC website in 2016 to provide a technology based venue for distribution of minutes, data, and relevant information. Other opportunities for community involvement include the Personnel Certification Meeting which meets on an annual basis; the annual meeting held at COEPD for district certification officers, personnel directors and regional educational service organization representatives; and Third Party Contracts with counties throughout West Virginia. Additional representatives from COEPD serve as board members for Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) (see RESA 2 PERSONNEL DIRECTORS).
The EPP and school partners jointly determine and construct clinical placements. The EPP works closely with its school partners so that candidates are placed in assignments that will assist them in gaining the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to be successful with P-12 students. All EPP partnerships are validated through Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements. (See MOU). MOUs are single partnership agreement forms that are signed with each participating school district. This partnership agreement has been developed between Marshall University and the respective school districts in West Virginia and is reviewed on a three-year cycle by the COEPD. Each MOU states that clinical experiences are recognized as a joint professional responsibility of professional preparation institutions and cooperating schools.
Marshall’s EPP also includes a Professional Development School Partnership (PDS) initiative focused on developing learning communities between Marshall’s EPP and more than 20 P-12 schools. The Professional Development Schools Partnership (PDS) Program is a grant project supported by the West Virginia Department of Education and the Arts, partnering Marshall University and the public schools in WV (Cabell, Wayne, and Putnam counties). The primary goal of the program is to enhance teacher candidate preparation through continued support and collaboration with public school teachers, ultimately enhancing teacher knowledge and skills at all levels. These partnerships are focused on enhancing student learning, improving teacher preparation, providing targeted professional development, outreach, and learning about teaching and technology. Initial level candidates are provided with an in-depth look at best practices through professional development, special activities, and collaboration. As a technology-based collaboration, the PDS website provides partner schools, building coordinators, teachers, and teacher candidates with information on teacher mini-grants, state conferences, and professional development opportunities. This past fall, teachers and teacher candidates were invited to attend a Student Teacher Extended Preparation Program (STEPP) workshop focusing on technology integration strategies as well as high demand issues in education, such as classroom management and differentiated instruction. Additionally, the COEPD has recently joined together with many PDS schools and other professionals in the community to host “Students Using their Powers to Engage in Reading” (SUPER) Day. SUPER Day is a project to celebrate the power of reading. West Virginia Leaders of Literacy, West Virginia Public Broadcasting, Cabell County Schools and Wayne County Schools are just a few of the participants. We have hosted this event twice and look forward to sponsoring it each fall (see PDS).
The COEPD also currently participates in the TEACHER-IN-RESIDENCE (TiR) partnership with sixteen (16) WV counties. The TIR Program is an intensively supervised and mentored residency program for prospective teachers during their senior year that refines their professional practice skills and helps them gain the teaching experience needed to demonstrate competence as a prerequisite to certification to teach in the West Virginia public schools. Teacher-in-Residence Programs require authorization of the WVBE pursuant to W.Va Code 18A-3-1(e). The number of participating counties has sharply risen from three (3) in 2014 to the current sixteen (16). The initial level continues to work to develop additional agreements and has a goal of partnering with twenty-five counties by the year 2020. TIR agreements are predominantly located in the counties surrounding Huntington, high need geographical areas, such as the southern coalfields of WV and the increasingly populated eastern panhandle (see TEACHER-INRESIDENCE).
The June Harless Center for Rural Educational Research and Development, since its inception in 2000, has been an arm of the Marshall University College of Education and Professional Development. The mission of the Harless Center is to provide leadership in educational initiatives for West Virginia educators and student. Over the years partnerships have been forged with school districts, schools and multiple state and private agencies in order to embed research based, best practices in the teaching and learning components of schools and school systems (see JUNE HARLESS CENTER).
In addition to the P-12 school-based and community partnerships, the initial level also collaborates with university colleagues. The Content Specialization Liaison Committee (CSLCITE) is a committee comprised of representatives from various program areas across the university. The members of CSLCITE are charged with considering aspects of secondary teacher preparation program specific to their content area. The committee’s mission is to review the courses offered in each program, including clinical experiences, and to recommend changes, based on national and state academic standards that would strengthen the program. Meetings are held every semester. Additionally, there is a CSLC website with current information, updates, and past meeting minutes (see CSLCITE).
On a daily basis, the Student Center of Professional Education Services (SCOPES) office and its staff serve as the main liaisons between candidates and P-12 partners and schools. SCOPES provides student support in academic advising, certification, clinical experiences and graduation. The office oversees the placement of students in public schools, the organization and implementation of orientation for student teachers, directing supervising teachers, and the collection of data for assessment and accreditation purposes. Throughout a typical semester the SCOPES office services nearly 800 students, including freshman orientation, sophomore advising, junior evaluations, senior evaluations, graduation and certification applications and Level I, II and III clinical placements (see SCOPES).
COMPONENT 2.2 CLINICAL EDUCATORS
The COEPD ensures the qualifications of clinical educators through a systematic and multitiered process. Based on WV Policy 5100, criteria for retaining both University Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers have been identified and are included in the Initial Level Resource Manual. A database providing documentation of the qualifications for clinical educators is maintained by the SCOPES office (see CLINICAL EDUCATOR TRAINING, HANDBOOKS, AND QUALIFICATIONS INITIAL LEVEL). These professionals have a record of experience in public schools and are carefully chosen through a collaborative process with the professional community. The Assistant Director of Clinical Experiences, in collaboration with school principals, and PDS Building Coordinators (where applicable) work to provide each teacher candidate with a placement that fits school and program needs. Candidates are placed in content specific classrooms based on their anticipated licensure (see SAMPLE OF CLINICAL PLACEMENTS).
The University Supervisor serves as the liaison between the University, cooperating teacher, and the teacher candidate. Their role is to support and guide the teacher candidate by providing
assistance/feedback to both the teacher candidate and cooperating teacher. The teacher candidate and cooperating teacher depend upon the University Supervisor as the primary university contact. The Cooperating Teacher also plays a critical role in the professional development of the teacher candidate. Cooperating Teachers must have a valid teaching certification/license for current teaching assignment and a minimum of three years of experience at the current teaching assignment.
Teacher candidates regularly evaluate clinical educators. University supervisors and cooperating teacher are evaluated on 16 related criteria using a five point scale of Always, Mostly, Sometimes, Rarely and Never. Candidate evaluations of the clinical educators are generally supportive. The data trend reflects an overall increase in satisfaction beginning with fall 2013 through fall 2016. University supervisors were rated the highest in maintaining a positive attitude toward teaching and impacting student learning (81.48%). Cooperating teachers scored the highest on availability and regularly providing support through the student teaching experience (93.88%). Furthermore, our university supervisors and cooperating teachers evaluate each other. Positive and negative comments listed in the surveys help enable the EPP to select highly qualified clinical educators. Comments made by university supervisors about cooperating teachers included: “STRONG cooperating teacher; quick feedback to teacher candidate and supervisor; excellent role model and supportive teacher; would not recommend for a fall placement; teacher had difficulty totally letting go of the classroom.” Comments made by cooperating teachers about university supervisors included: “does a great job; we need more like him; very positive role model; an awesome supervisor; she makes the student teachers feel like family; she is eager to help and gives suggestions on how to make lessons better; she communicated with me as well as the student teachers; highly recommend to other student teachers.” (see CLINICAL EDUCATORS EVALUATIONS).
The COEPD also administers the NExT Survey to all initial level teacher candidates at the end of their student teaching placement. The Network for Excellence in Teaching (NExT), founded in 2010, is a partnership of 14 institutions of higher education (IHEs) and the Bush Foundation. NExT collaborated to develop a set of common surveys to support teacher preparation programs in measuring the effectiveness of their programs. NExT shared the instruments with other teacher preparation programs, inviting them to contribute their data to an aggregate data set that will be used in future instrument analyses to strengthen the instruments and ensure their validity and reliability across diverse respondent pools. The survey is distributed through Qualtrics and asks many different questions about the candidates’ experience. Data from the NExT survey provides solid evidence of initial level completer satisfaction with their clinical educators, both the university supervisor and cooperating teacher. Candidates surveyed agree or tend to agree that their university supervisor provided them with constructive feedback on their teaching 96.81% of the time. The teacher candidate also agreed or tended to agree the university supervisor helped them understand their roles and responsibilities as a student teacher 95.74% of the time. Over 90% of the teacher candidates surveyed stated that their cooperating teacher made them feel welcome, shared ideas and materials, and helped them with classroom management (see NEXT SURVEY, Section C).
All University Supervisors are required to attend an orientation each semester. The orientation serves as a platform for professional development and training on new processes and technology-based applications. Recent orientations have focused on the implementation of LiveText as a data-management system and the new state adopted Teacher Performance Assessment (WVTPA). The Assistant Director of Clinical Experiences discusses changes to curriculum, university updates regarding travel and payment, observation forms and our evaluation system. It is also at this time that we deliver the survey data regarding our university supervisors. Collectively, we deliberate over the survey data to determine if changes need to be made to the practices of our university supervisors. Over the past four semesters, at least 80% of university supervisors have attended these trainings. Since the fall of 2017, the trainings have been recorded and uploaded to the online PLC for those supervisors unable to attend and future reference (see CLINICAL EDUCATOR TRAINING, HANDBOOKS, AND QUALIFICATIONS INITIAL LEVEL).
Through feedback received from teacher candidates, cooperating teachers and university supervisors, it was determined that communication between all parties needed to improve. During the summer of 2016, discussions were held with various stakeholders and approval was given from the college administrators to move forward with improvements in communication. An online Professional Learning Community (PLC) was created to improve communication. The online PLC was launched and introduced to all stakeholders spring 2017. At the final seminar of the fall 2017 semester, 49 teacher candidates were surveyed regarding the effectiveness of the newly created online PLC. Of the candidates surveyed, 97.96% had accessed the online PLC during the fall semester; 87.76% of teacher candidates stated the online PLC had improved communication between teacher candidates, the EPP, university supervisors and cooperating teachers (see PLC).
COMPONENT 2.3 CLINICAL EXPERIENCES
Field-based and clinical experiences reflect the conceptual framework of the EPP through coursework, assessment forms and rubrics. Candidates are provided with opportunities to develop through a continuum of experiences that allow for observation, personal reflection, and some professional responsibilities to full professional responsibilities under the guidance of highly qualified clinical educators. All candidates are provided a variety of field-based and clinical experiences. Candidates seeking state licensure have field experiences as a component of their preparation. All programs have clearly defined placement processes, candidate expectations, and supervisory roles. Programs specific requirements and expectations for candidates participating in a field or clinical experience are outlined in program-developed clinical handbooks or described in clinical course syllabi (see TEACHER CANDIDATE CLINICAL HANDBOOK INITIAL LEVEL). Programs are intentional about clinical placements, ensuring that there is a documentable process verifying that each candidate is placed with a qualified mentor in the field. To ensure candidates receive a series of diverse placements, the SCOPES office maintains a Clinical Experience Database. Each semester clinical data, such as school, teacher, and grade level, is entered and candidates’ progress is tracked to confirm each placement is meaningful and relevant. Factors such as school size, low socioeconomic status, special education, race and English language learners are all taken into account (see SAMPLE of CLINICAL PLACEMENTS).
The EPP has developed and implemented a number of strategies to ensure that field-based and clinical experiences are addressed in a logical and sequential manner. These strategies include the manner in which programs have been planned and designed, systematic and sequenced scheduling of courses, increased emphasis on candidate advising, improved candidate monitoring systems and a formal preapplication procedure. Each teacher candidate will complete three major clinical experiences, as well as several field-based experiences such as science methods, social studies methods, differentiated instruction and middle school methods. Each experience requires candidates to work in a school setting. Clinical hours and field based experiences vary by academic program. The Clinicals-at-a-Glance graphic provides candidates, faculty, supervisors, and teachers a quick reference of the required clinical experiences for each program in our EPP. Overall, teacher candidates will receive approximately 800 hours in a clinical setting (see INITIAL PROGRAMS WITH CLINICAL HOURS).
As the first of three formal clinical experiences, the LEVEL I, provides a window through which teacher candidates can view students and classrooms from the teacher’s perspective. Teacher candidates participate in tutoring, teaching, and other activities as appropriate in the classroom and observe the developmental levels of their students. The LEVEL II clinical requires the teacher candidate to begin independent planning and execution of lessons/units, connect educational philosophy, research, and theory to his/her own practice. The candidate is also provided an opportunity to develop classroom management skills and utilize effective methods of instruction, including technology. Finally, the candidates begin regular reflection by formally examining and critiquing their own daily teaching as well as responding to issues of diversity, considering the needs of students individually as well as collectively. Student teaching, LEVEL III clinical, is a semester-long, full-day experience in one or more public schools. As the final clinical experience, student teaching allows teacher candidates to apply theories, research, and philosophies of education to the practice of teaching in a public school. They also refine planning, teaching, management, assessment, and reflection skills to achieve a level of professional competence consistent with the institutional, CAEP, and state competency standards (see STUDENT TEACHING SURVEY). Teacher candidates critically examine teaching and learning processes as well as student learning by assuming the full role of a teacher. Candidates also use current technologies and strategies to enhance critical thinking and maximize learning. They also develop reflective and self-assessment skills as they continually analyze and evaluate their own progress (see TEACHER CANDIDATE CLINICAL HANDBOOK INITIAL LEVEL).
Initial level programs regularly and systematically assess candidate performance through key assessments administered during clinical experiences. Assessment forms and rubrics reflect the standards and outcomes for candidate performance. Multiple assessments are used to evaluate candidate performance and student learning. Candidates receive feedback through the field-based or clinical experiences from both public school and clinical faculty. Field experiences and clinical practice include time for reflection and feedback and require candidates to complete lessons plans with daily reflections. Initial candidates also have scheduled seminars in which they share experiences with peers.
Level I candidates are evaluated using one of two scales. The first scale, used during the 2015 2016 academic year, consists of ten separate elements and is scored using a four point measure ranging from four points, which is distinguished, to one point which is unsatisfactory. During the 2015-2016 academic year our candidates scored highest on appearance (3.69), commitment to students (3.74), attitude/composure (3.69) and confidentiality (3.72) and scored lowest on commitment to technology (3.5) and critical thinking (3.49). In the 2016-2017 academic year, the number of elements in which the candidates were evaluated increased from ten to twelve. During the 2016-2017 academic year our candidates scored highest in policy and procedure (3.98), schedule (3.96), and respect (3.97) and scored lowest in commitment to technology (3.90) (see LEVEL I).
Level II candidates were assessed with two different evaluations. The first scale, used during the 2015-2016 academic year, is scored using a four point measure ranging from four points, which is distinguished to one point, which is unsatisfactory. During the 2015-2016 academic year, candidates scored highest in modifies instruction (3.50), ensures appropriate behavior (3.47) and plans and implements differentiated learning activities (3.47) and scored the lowest in designs and uses a variety of assessment (3.05). The element descriptions in the evaluation instrument changed in the 2016-2017 academic year. During the 2016-2017 year, candidates scored highest in learning activities (3.14) and learner-centered culture (3.14) and scored lowest in assessment approach (2.86). Moving forward, the EPP must seek out ways to improve candidates understanding and implementation of assessment (see LEVEL II).
Student teaching, Level III, was also assessed by using two different evaluations. The first scale, used during the 2015-2016 academic year, is scored using a four point measure ranging from 4 points, which is distinguished to one point, which is unsatisfactory. During the 2015-2016 academic year, candidates scored highest in creates a community of learners (3.45), uses appropriate technology (3.42) and plans and implements differentiated learning activities and scored the lowest in aligned instruction and assessment (3.08). The element descriptions in the evaluation instrument changes in the 2016-2017 academic year. During the 2016-2017 year, candidates scored highest in instructional strategies (3.26), appropriate learning environment (3.16) and content knowledge (3.10) and scored the lowest in assessment driven instruction (2.86) (see LEVEL III).
Opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their impact on student learning occur through lessons plans, assessments, plans for creating the learning environment, analysis of student test data, and reflection on practice. Initial candidates prepare the West Virginia Teacher Performance Assessment (WVTPA) during student teaching. The purpose of this technology-enhanced portfolio is to demonstrate the impact of the candidate on student learning. In the past three semesters 100% of all teacher candidates have passed the WVTPA. Ninety percent of all candidates receive scores at the “emerging” and “accomplished” levels, with about 10% receiving “distinguished” marks. In our orientation sessions, we make it very clear that students must receive at least a score of a “2 (emerging)” to pass the TPA. The evaluation rubric was written so that the average student would be at a “2” on all elements. During the Fall 2016 semester, elementary and secondary candidates were fairly even in their marks, with elementary candidates receiving a few higher scores in “Instructional Strategies” (Task 4), “Classroom Set-up and Organization” (Task 5), “Flexibility” (Task 5), “Student Engagement” (Task 5), “Clarity and Representation of Evidence” (Task 6), “Interpretation of Data” (Task 6), and “Evidence of Impact” (Task 6). The scores were somewhat higher by 10-20% in most tasks during the spring 2017 semester (see WVTPA).
Technology is incorporated in a variety of ways to facilitate clinical experiences. Clinical practice allows candidates to create lesson plans that embed technology in order to enhance the learning of P-12 students. Lesson Plan with Technology, a performance task, is required for CI 350 Instructional Technology and Computers. Technology is listed as an instructional strategy that candidates use in field-based and clinical experiences, is included as an element of the clinical rubric, and is part of the portfolio and capstone interview presentation (see CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL).
The COEPD has also started using more technology-enhanced process tools. All candidates now submit both their student teaching application and application for Initial Teaching License online. Additionally, in fall 2015, the COEPD began utilizing LiveText to gather and store data for teacher candidates. LiveText is an assessment system purposely designed to capture moments in the learning process so that learners and institutions can see growth, reflect on experiences and improve. Candidates upload their work, align it to current standards and share it with instructors. LiveText can be accessed from multiple locations. All stakeholders involved with the candidates’ field experience have access to a LiveText account. Teacher candidates record their time in the classroom in LiveText. Cooperating Teachers then approve the time recorded. Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors are required to complete both mid-term and final evaluations on each teacher candidate through the LiveText platform.
COEPD has developed guidelines that delineate the purposes of field-based and clinical experiences, identify criteria for developing and implementing such experiences, and identify EPP and program responsibilities. The clinical experiences systematically provide opportunities for candidates to work in a variety of settings and are sequenced to allow for candidate development throughout the respective programs. Programs are expected to establish collaborative relationships with P-12 school and community partners to define the competencies which candidates must demonstrate in order to meet program entry, preparation, and exit requirements. The COEPD has created and maintained a plethora of positive, meaningful and relevant partnerships. The collaboration between the COEPD and participants within EPPAC, CSLC, and PDS are imperative for successful preparation of teacher candidates. Conversations held at the various meetings regarding decisions about entrance, progression and graduation from the teacher education program reinforces the coherence and accountability for candidate outcomes. The partnerships created with PDS schools are extremely supportive of our teacher candidates. Additionally, the willingness of faculty and staff to address community needs has led to successful collaborations and a readiness to facilitate teacher candidates in the field. Our relationship with the June Harless Center for Rural Educational Research and Development has created further partnerships with school districts, schools and multiple state and private agencies in order to embed research based, best practices in the teaching learning components of schools and school systems. The EPP has built a successful and effective teacher candidate placement process. The SCOPES team works closely with school personnel to ensure each teacher candidate is given the opportunity to experience an effective student teaching placement. The criteria for selecting both university supervisors and cooperating teachers are fully enforced and monitored carefully. Additionally, we have clearly and intentionally outlined the expectations of the teacher candidate, and the roles and responsibilities of both the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher. The success of a teacher candidate in the COEPD depends on several different factors. We will continue to strive to give each individual the tools he or she needs in order to be successful.
|CLINICAL EDUCATORS EVALUATIONS||2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators|
|CSLCITE||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|INITIAL PROGRAMS WITH CLINICAL HOURS||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|JUNE HARLESS CENTER||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|LEVEL I||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|LEVEL II||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|LEVEL III||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|MOU||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|NEXT SURVEY||2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators|
|PDS||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|PLC||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|RESA 2 PERSONNEL DIRECTORS||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|SCOPES||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|STUDENT TEACHING SURVEY||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|TEACHER-IN-RESIDENCE||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|WVTPA||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|EPPAC||2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships|
|TEACHER CANDIDATE CLINICAL HANDBOOK INITIAL LEVEL||2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences|
|SAMPLE OF CLINICAL PLACEMENTS||2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators
2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences
|CLINICAL EDUCATOR TRAINING, HANDBOOK, AND QUALIFICATIONS INITIAL LEVEL||2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators|