Standard 3

[back to CAEP Self-Study Report]

 

Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment and Selectivity – The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification. The provider demonstrates that development of candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program. This process is ultimately determined by a program’s meeting of Standard 4.

Plan for Recruitment of Diverse Candidates who Meet Employment Needs

3.1 The provider presents plans and goals to recruit and support completion of high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields, currently, STEM, English-language learning, and students with disabilities.

Admission Standards Indicate that Candidates have High Academic Achievement and Ability

3.2 REQUIRED COMPONENT- The provider sets admissions requirements, including CAEP minimum criteria or the state’s minimum criteria, whichever are higher, and gathers data to monitor applicants and the selected pool of candidates. The provider ensures that the average grade point average of its accepted cohort of candidates meets or exceeds the CAEP minimum of 3.0, and the group average performance on nationally normed ability/achievement assessments such as ACT, SAT, or GRE:

• is in the top 50 percent from 2016-2017;
• is in the top 40 percent of the distribution from 2018-2019; and is in the top 33 percent of the distribution by 2020.[i]

[ALTERNATIVE 1] If any state can meet the CAEP standards, as specified above, by demonstrating a correspondence in scores between the state-normed assessments and nationally normed ability/achievement assessments, then educator preparation providers from that state will be able to utilize their state assessments until 2020. CAEP will work with states through this transition.

[ALTERNATIVE 2] Over time, a program may develop a reliable, valid model that uses admissions criteria other than those stated in this standard. In this case, the admitted cohort group mean on these criteria must meet or exceed the standard that has been shown to positively correlate with measures of P-12 student learning and development.

The provider demonstrates that the standard for high academic achievement and ability is met through multiple evaluations and sources of evidence. The provider reports the mean and standard deviation for the group.

[Board amendment adopted February 13, 2015] CAEP will work with states and providers through this transition regarding nationally or state normed assessments. Alternative arrangements for meeting this standard (beyond the alternative stated above for “a reliable, valid model that uses admissions criteria other than those stated in this standard”) will be approved only under special circumstances. The CAEP staff will report to the Board and the public annually on actions taken under this provision. In all cases, EPPs must demonstrate the quality of the admitted candidates.

Narrative

The initial level of the COEPD demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification. The initial level demonstrates that development of candidate quality is a goal in all phases of its program.

RECRUITMENT

The COEPD recognizes the need to recruit and support completion of high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish its mission. In addition, it demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields, currently, STEM, English-language learning, and students with disabilities.

Initial level programs have two major means of addressing, fulfilling, and monitoring the recruitment of diverse candidates who meet the employment needs of our service area. An established STANDARD 3 ACTION PLAN INITIAL LEVEL clearly demonstrates efforts to address needs with candidate quality, recruitment, and selectivity as its mission, and the RECRUITMENT PLAN INITIAL LEVEL provides a set of yearly goals to reflect the demands for a diverse candidate population.

The STANDARD 3 ACTION PLAN INITIAL LEVEL was developed in 2014 to specifically focus on CAEP Standard 3. It resulted in a number of admission changes (increase in GPA requirements, new admission portfolio, required writing sample), a shift in recruitment to address high need content and geographic area needs, and recruitment of a more diverse candidate pool. The plan identifies four yearly initiatives goals: 1) evaluate diversity levels by major program, 2) determine/update candidate diversity goals, 3) develop/update recruitment plan, and 4) develop infrastructure to monitor the recruitment plan. It also outlines two (2) specific candidate support initiatives for diverse candidates: support programs and diversity programming. Data have been collected on these initiatives since inception. As part of the COEPD QAS, the plan is scheduled for major review at the end of its five-year cycle in 2019.

Several measures of diversity at the initial level are tracked to determine trends and identify areas that require more focus and work. These measures include ethnicity, gender, self-disclosed disabilities, financial aid qualifiers, and high need subject area candidates (science, mathematics, or special education). The ethnicity of all enrolled candidates at the initial level has held steady from fall 2014-fall 2017. Increasing the number of non-white candidates has been a focus, and actual enrollment percentages/numbers are trending upward (Fall 14 – 4.8%, Fall 15 – 4.9%, Fall 16 – 5.6%, and Fall 17 – 5.5%). At the program level, Early Childhood Education has had the most ethnically diverse candidate pool with a four year average at 14.2%. The elementary four year average is 4.4%, and the secondary four year average is 5.1%. Gender numbers are also calculated yearly for the initial level. Recognizing there is a need for more male candidates in the program, particularly at the early childhood and elementary levels, increasing the number of male candidates became an official goal in 2015. Percentages have remained steady (Fall 2015 – 27.3%, Fall 2016 – 26.5%, and Fall 2017 – 24.5%), and the goal remains as the initial level examines increased efforts to market the program to attract more male candidates. Monitoring candidates with self-disclosed disabilities in its programs is another focus on diversity. These candidates have supplied the university with appropriate documentation and receive some type of university services for their disability. The COEPD works with university entities to provide these candidates with the additional support they need to be successful. Numbers at the initial level are trending upward (Fall 14 – 2 candidates, Fall 15 – 6 candidates, Fall 16 – 10 candidates, and Fall 17 – 10 candidates) and are consistent across programs. The initial level also acknowledges its responsibility to provide the state of West Virginia with an increased number of candidates prepared to teach in high need content areas and closely follows both candidates and completers in the specific areas of mathematics, science, and special education. All (100%) early childhood program candidates fit this designation due to the design of their program (ending with a certification in both early childhood and preschool special needs). Additionally, in three of the last four years, over 20% of the candidates enrolled in the elementary and secondary programs have been prepared for high need areas (Fall 14 – 22.1%, Fall 16 – 25.8%, and Fall 17 – 21.2%). Increasing the number of mathematics, science, and special education candidates has been a COEPD goal since the 2013-
14 year. The four year candidate “actual” versus “goal” numbers for mathematics (20 vs. 71), science (20 vs. 94), and special education (40 vs. 141) all show positive trends. Completer data also show the COEPD is meeting the desired goals (mathematics: 20 vs. 32, science: 20 vs. 29, and special education: 40 vs. 59). The initial level is expecting an even higher number of candidates to be classified in this area due to a restructuring of the special education program (a move from MI to Multi-categorical) and an increase in the number of TEACHER-IN-RESIDENCE (TIR) programs.

Recognizing that many of its candidates live in low SES areas and struggle to meet the monetary requirements of a degree, the initial level has also started monitoring its candidates receiving financial aid. At this point candidates can only be tracked at the university level with numbers available since 2016 when 70.1% of Marshall University students received financial aid. The initial level continues to market specific COEPD scholarships and has attracted candidates from diverse backgrounds, in high need content areas, and/or with a documented financial need. Of the forty five scholarships unique to the college, two-thirds (29) specifically require a diverse background or an intent to teach in a high need area, and two-thirds require a demonstrated financial need. Over $25,000 a year is distributed to candidates meeting the scholarship criteria (See SCOPES).

The RECRUITMENT PLAN INITIAL LEVEL also provides a set of yearly goals that specifically drive recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities at the initial level have traditionally focused on two areas: 1) general university efforts, and 2) college-unique recruitment efforts. Each initial level goal for recruitment is tracked, and beginning with the 2013-14 year, data have been kept and disseminated on an annual basis at Program Director meetings. Originally established in 2012, the Initial Level Recruitment Plan was revised in the fall of 2017 based on five-year data trends.

The five year review of the Recruitment Plan goals conducted by the initial level Program Directors deemed the original initiatives (mailings, visits, partnerships with targeted HS teachers and counselors, PDS relationships with targeted schools) as worthwhile endeavors. Relationships with partner schools in the area have increased from sixteen (16) in 2013-14 to twenty-two (22) in 2017-18, and special recruiting events (College fairs, Green White Days, Becoming One of the Herd, Career Days) have attracted a traditional pool of candidates and need to be continued. Recruiting events during the 2016-17 year reached nearly 500 potential candidates. The review also considered the 2014 creation of the SCOPES (Student Center of Professional Education Services) as a necessary and beneficial infrastructure change. The SCOPES Office was specifically designed to combine efforts in recruitment and enrollment management, and in the last three years coordinated student orientation, all recruitment events, certification/graduation, and the placement of candidates in clinical experiences. In a typical semester the SCOPES office services nearly 800 students.

The two goals that emerged with limited and sporadic results from the review were improving services and programs for diverse student populations once they are enrolled in the COEPD and increasing targeted marketing efforts. The initial level acknowledges that more effort needs to be focused on how to assist diverse candidates as they progress through programs. The revised plan will focus on this area with initiatives to include working with existing COEPD centers (HELP Program, Appalachian Studies Association, and the Autism Center). To address marketing, a Recruitment/Marketing Committee was established in the fall of 2017 and a Director of Continuing Education was hired.

CANDIDATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

COEPD candidates meet the CAEP minimum criteria for academic achievement and academic quality for both the cohort GPA and the group average performance on nationally normed assessments (Praxis CORE and ACT). Data are gathered on candidates at the time of admission to the program and reported each academic year. Data for 2013-14 until 2016-17 are available in the COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS FOR STANDARD 3.

GPA data continue to provide solid evidence for the academic achievement of initial level candidates. The “All Admitted Cohort” averages exceed the minimum requirement of 3.0 and follow a healthy trend for the last four years (3.27, 3.37, 3.41, and 3.36). When examined across all programmatic areas, two content areas (Physics and Spanish) did have a GPA below 3.0 in one year, but these numbers reflect the fact that only one candidate was admitted in each program. All other licensure areas admitted cohorts with higher than required average GPAs annually from 2013 until 2017.

Candidate performance on the nationally normed Praxis CORE test also provides evidence that initial level candidates are of sufficient academic quality. The “All Admitted Cohort” averages for Reading, Writing, and Mathematics all exceed the CAEP minimum requirement for 2016-17. The Reading score (176.61) far exceeded the required score (168.06), and the Writing score (167.42) fared significantly better than the required (165). Mathematics has admittedly been a more difficult area for many candidates, however, the average score on the Mathematics section (162.24) also met the necessary level (162.14). While cohort averages for reading, writing, and mathematics are only necessary for the 2016-17 year, the initial level has tracked these data for the last four years. Since 2013-14, the “All Admitted Cohort” averages have been in the top 50 percent with the exception of the mathematics average in 2014-15, and it only fell 0.52 points below (161.62 vs. 162.14).

Disaggregation of licensure area data shows positive trends, with all licensure areas having an average score in both reading and writing above the required level. One area of concern and in need of increased effort is mathematics. Elementary, art, music, and wellness all showed lower than desired scores. Recognizing the need to assist candidates in these areas, PRAXIS HELP WORKSHOPS were conducted by the college in the spring of 2017 and through a partnership with RESA II in fall 2017. Thirty-two candidates attended the college workshop and five attended the RESA workshop. A survey conducted after the college session found 100% of attendees finding the “CORE Math Study Session Helpful”. Plans moving forward include continuation of the college workshops and the anticipated creation of a Praxis Intensive Tutoring (PIT) Center in the newly renovated Education Building set to open in the spring of 2019.

ADDITIONAL SELECTIVITY FACTORS

The COEPD establishes and monitors candidate attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability at admission and throughout the program. Consistent with the CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, the COEPD has adopted four disposition concepts. These four broad areas include commitment to: students, the profession, diversity, and the use of technology. Professional dispositions are addressed throughout the coursework and field/clinical experiences, and data from the assessment of dispositions are an element of the overall decision making process about program change and improvement, as well as candidate admission and progress. At the initial level dispositions for the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary candidates are collected from multiple sources.

Clinical experiences provide dispositional data from LEVEL I, LEVEL II, LEVEL III, WVTPA, and the CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL. Level I data from the last four semesters (Fall 2015-Speing 2017) provide evidence that candidates understand the importance of dispositions with overall mean scores ranging from 3.49-3.99 on a 4-point scale. While scores have traditionally been high, the last two semesters have seen an upward trend in nine of the twelve indicators. Disaggregated program data indicate that elementary candidates tend to score slightly higher than secondary. Level II data provide similar results with the four semester range of scores 3.74-4.00. No differences between programs were identified from the Level II data. Four-semester Level III dispositional data reflected ranges from 3.75-4.00.

Disposition data are also tracked across multiple courses housing PERFORMANCE TASKS. Lesson Plan with Technology four year scores have ranged from 3.21-3.94 (on a 4 point scale) with elementary candidates scoring slightly higher than secondary and early childhood. The Diversity Tutoring Project assignment also resulted in positive trends with scores ranging from 3.20-4.0. No differences were noted between program areas. Scores from the Classroom Management Portfolio assignment affirmed candidate dispositional commitment with averages ranging from 3.14-3.98. Secondary candidates performed higher than elementary.

In an effort to recruit and admit a stronger candidate pool, with the dispositional ability to meet the demands of being a teacher, the initial level decided in the spring of 2013 to increase admission
requirements for acceptance. Recognizing the need to document and monitor candidates more closely as well as to increase expectations, the initial level began discussions of an increase in GPA and the inclusion of a candidate admission portfolio requiring a self-assessment, professional recommendations completed by professors or employers, and a professional writing sample. After a pilot study in the fall of 2016, the new CANDIDATE ADMISSION POLICY INITIAL LEVEL (CAP) was formally implemented in the spring of 2017. First semester data results are encouraging with self-assessment scores ranging from 2.90-3.75 (on a 4 point scale) on the fourteen standards. Important to note, the spring 2017 candidates for admission did rate “uses technology to enhance the educational experience” as the lowest. While the majority of candidates at this point in their program have not yet completed the CI 350 Instructional Technology course, the initial level does plan to specifically monitor technology commitment as a result of the low number. CAP professional recommendations for candidates provided supporting data on potential admits with averages ranging from 3.33-3.63. Secondary candidates scored slightly higher than elementary.

While data from the above sources indicate that initial level candidates demonstrate dispositional knowledge and the appropriate behavior required of future teachers, it is still the responsibility of the COEPD to document when/if dispositional standards have not been met. Programs track and report when dispositional behaviors warrant candidate remediation or advancement through the programs is halted due to an inability to appropriately meet expectations. At times, candidates not meeting dispositional and professional standards are asked to repeat clinical experiences or coursework, and in extreme circumstances, counseled out of the program. To document when candidates struggle to meet the required attributes and dispositions, three SELECTIVITY FACTORS INITIAL LEVEL are used: 1) Disposition Form Report, 2) Academic Dishonesty Report, and 3) No credit (N/C) for any Clinical Experience: Level I, II, or III. Data for each of these measures are collected each semester and documentation is provided.

The “Disposition Form” discussion process began in fall 2014 and included constituent groups, particularly the CSLCITE (Content Specialization Liaison Committee) and the EPPAC (Educational Personnel Preparation Advisory Committee). The form was created and distributed at faculty meetings and piloted during the spring 2015 semester with full implementation in fall 2015. The initial level has had success using the disposition form to monitor candidates’ progression through the program. If a faculty member, supervisor, or cooperating teacher completes a disposition form on a candidate, the candidate is required to meet with his/her Program Director to discuss the incident and devise a plan of improvement. Since inception (Spring 2015), only seven forms on five separate candidates (one candidate received three separate forms) have been filed. Of the five candidates, two transferred out of the college, two no longer attend the university, and one remains in the program.

The Academic Dishonesty Report stems from university policy. Academic Dishonesty is conduct on an academic exercise that falls into one or more of the following categories: cheating, fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, bribes/favors/threats, and complicity. Sanctions for academic dishonesty may be imposed by the instructor of the course, the department chairperson, or the Academic Dean. The initial level tracks the number of candidates charged with academic dishonesty and monitors their progression through the program. Since fall 2013, 16 candidates have been charged. Of the 16, only one charge was dismissed, and that candidate did graduate from the program. The other 15 academic dishonesty cases resulted in nine candidates no longer attending the university, five remaining in the COEPD, and one graduating. All were first time offenders.

The third dispositional selectivity process is the monitoring of candidates receiving N/C (no credit) for any of the three major clinical experiences. The initial level monitors candidate completion of all clinical experiences and collects data from Level I, Level II, and Level III non-completers. Candidates who fail to receive credit for any of the clinical experiences must meet with either their specific Program Director or the SCoPES Director in order to re-enroll in the experiences. The Level I Clinical Experience (EDF 270-35 hours) takes place in a public school and provides candidates their first opportunity to work with faculty, staff, and students in a teaching and learning environment. The majority (90.11% from Fall 2014-Spring 2017) of teacher candidates complete the experience and receive credit for the course. Of the 63 candidates receiving N/C over the past six semesters, 33 have transferred out of the COEPD and 17 are no longer enrolled at the university. Only 13 remain enrolled in the college, and of those, nine have now received credit for the experience. Further examination of the data reveals that more non-completers are at the secondary level (40) than the elementary (20) or early childhood (3) levels. Of the secondary majors, Social Studies (11) and English (8) have the highest numbers, though those programs do have larger enrollments. Surprisingly, Art (7) has a disproportionately large number of non-completers and a high rate of transfer. The Level II Clinical Experience provides candidates an opportunity to put theory into classroom practice and requires 75 hours of contact. The vast majority (98.33% from Fall 2014-Spring 2017) of teacher candidates complete the experience and receive credit for the course. Since the number of non-completers (six over the last six semesters) is so low, trends have proved difficult to identify. More elementary candidates (four of the six) than secondary have received N/C. Two did repeat the experience and move on to graduate, and two others are currently enrolled hoping to complete. The Level III all-day student teaching clinical experience data also provide positive results with an overwhelming majority (98.67% from Fall 2014-Spring 2017) of teacher candidates completing the experience and receiving credit for the course. Since fall 2014, only seven candidates have failed to complete the experience. Of the seven, three completed the experience the next semester, three are currently student teaching, and one transferred out of the program.

SELECTION DURING PREPARATION

The initial level of the COEPD has identified criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion. Candidate progression and advancement are specifically monitored through the SCOPES (Student Center of Professional Education Services) office and its Director and staff members. Junior and senior degree evaluations are completed for each candidate, and candidates in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Programs must meet with either their Program Directors or faculty members for mandatory advising appointments every semester before being able to register for classes.

The PROGRAM PROGRESSION AND TRANSITIONS INITIAL LEVEL details the steps the initial level utilizes to track candidate progression. Data are collected at the following transition points: 1) Admission to Program (ADMI 4), 2) Admission to Level II Clinical (ADMI 5), 3) Admission to Student Teaching (ADMI 6), 4) Graduation, and 5) Certification. Yearly program area data are reported for each of these measures.

Overall admission numbers (ADMI 4) have remained strong despite a dip in university and college enrollment. No substantive change has occurred in the number of candidates gaining initial acceptance, although a slight downward trend occurred in 2015-16 for the elementary program. Admission to Level II Clinical (ADMI 5) provides the next layer of selectivity to programs and numbers naturally are lower than initial admission. Again, 2015-16 saw a lower than anticipated number of admits to Level II Clinicals.

The COEPD has identified criteria for candidates to demonstrate their ability to teach to COLLEGE AND CAREER READY STANDARDS throughout the program. From admission through completion, candidates develop both a knowledge/awareness and a practical application of the standards. The initial level monitors candidate understanding of the college and career ready standards in multiple ways: 1) Completion of professional education courses, 2) CAP – Candidate Admission Portfolio, 3) Completion of LEVEL I, LEVEL II, and LEVEL III Clinical Experiences, 4) Completion of the WVTPA, 5) Completion of the CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL, and 6) Passing score on the PLT. Professional education courses provide candidates with an initial exposure to the college and career ready standards. Of the twenty-three different courses, eleven (48%) address college and career readiness standards for instruction and nineteen (90%) address college and career ready dispositions. Clinical experiences and methods courses also provide ample opportunity for initial level candidates to demonstrate practical application of the standards via lesson planning and standards-based instruction.

SELECTION AT COMPLETION

The COEPD has identified graduation and licensure criteria that further demonstrate candidate ability and knowledge at completion. The GRADUATION AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS INITIAL LEVEL are monitored through the Student Center of Professional Education Services (SCoPES) office and tracked by the Certification Specialist.

In order to graduate, the candidates must complete the following: 1) All coursework listed on the appropriate curriculum sheet, 2) Required number of hours, 3) Required GPA for overall, at MU, teaching specialization, and professional education coursework, 4) Passing score on the West Virginia Teaching Performance Assessment (WVTPA), 5) Passing score on the CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL, and 6) Successful completion of the LEVEL III Student Teaching Experience at the appropriate grade level and content area. Data for each of these measures are collected every semester and documentation is provided. In order to be certified in the state of West Virginia, the candidates must complete all of the above graduation requirements as well as the required score on the PLT (Principles of Learning and Teaching Test) and appropriate PRAXIS II SCORES.

The PLT measures general pedagogical knowledge and actual teaching skill at four grade levels. Content categories for this exam include, but are not limited to, assessment, instructional process, analysis of instructional scenarios and professional development, leadership and community. Initial level candidate scores on the PLT provide excellent evidence of pedagogical skills and knowledge. Four year pass rates for all initial level secondary programs are at 100%, with the exception of physical education (83% in 2013-14 and 75% in 15-16) and Music (67% in 2013-14 and 93% in 16-17). Elementary education rates also remain strong, reaching 98% in 2013-14, 100% in 14-15, 96% in 15-16, and 100% in 16-17. Monitoring will continue to determine if these become patterns.

Similar evidence surfaces about candidate content knowledge based upon PRAXIS II SCORES data. Of the initial level licensure areas requiring Praxis II, 13 have posted pass rates above 80% for each of the last 4 years, and 8 of those have 100% pass rates every year. The only real areas for concern are in Spanish and Math 5-Adult. The initial level has created workshops for both areas and continues to explore conversations with departments across campus to examine curriculum development and course offerings that better meet candidate needs.

Finally, before candidates are recommended for licensure, the candidates’ understanding of the expectations of the profession, including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policies are assessed (PROFESSIONAL ETHICS). Candidate understanding of expectations are measured in multiple ways: 1) Completion of Professional Education Core Courses, 2) New CAP Candidate Admission Portfolio with Writing Sample and Professional Recommendations, 3) Completion of LEVEL I, LEVEL II, and LEVEL III Clinicals, 4) Completion of WVTPA, 5) Completion of CAPSTONE INTERVIEW INITIAL LEVEL, and 6) Passing score on PLT. Professional education courses provide candidates with an academic/theoretical exposure to the expectations of the teaching profession. Syllabi review of initial level courses (PROFESSIONAL ETHICS) provide specific details. Of the twenty-three different courses, seven (30%) specifically address ethics, sixteen (70%) explore professional standards of practice, and eleven (48%) examine laws and policies. Clinical experiences also provide ample opportunity for initial level candidates to demonstrate practical application of professionalism via communication expectations, relationships with colleagues, parents, and students, and an adherence to confidentiality requirements and school policy expectations.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS

In summary and conclusion, the initial level of the COEPD has developed and implemented a multidimensional approach for demonstrating that the academic, pedagogical, and professional ability of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility. Beginning with rigorous and purposeful recruitment plans focused on diversity and high need content areas, the initial level demonstrates a commitment to meeting the needs of shortage field and hard-to-staff WV schools. The initial level utilizes measures of academic factors, specifically GPA and performance on nationally normed assessments for admission determination, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and for graduation and licensure decisions. Dispositional requirements and non-academic factors are used to further increase the selectivity of candidates in the programs, with commitments to technology, diversity, students, and the profession being paramount. The initial level consistently demonstrates that candidate quality is a goal in all phases of its program by monitoring candidate progress and providing support when necessary. COEPD candidates demonstrate proficiency at junctures throughout the program and at completion.

[back to CAEP Self-Study Report]