Standard 2 and A.2

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.

SUMMARY

The EPP promotes mutually beneficial relationships with our partners in order to foster rich experiences for our program candidates. These relationships fall within two categories: internal collaborations across colleges within the University (such as the Professional Educator Coordinating Council {PECC} and Humanities faculty for the Extended 5 Year Masters) and external collaborations with our schools and divisions.

The EPP co-selects, prepares, evaluates, supports, and seeks to retain high-quality clinical educators in both the University and division schools. Each year candidates work with P-12 Clinical Faculty (CF) and Cooperating Teachers/Mentors (CMT) in a variety of settings during their early and culminating clinical experiences. Data show that the CF/CMT teachers who work with our education candidates during the culminating experiences have several years of experience in P-12 settings (minimum of 5). Overall, CF/CMT are highly educated; more than half of those for whom we have data have earned a master’s degree, and the majority are white women.

The EPP partners with P-12 divisions to provide multiple field experiences in classrooms where candidates develop pedagogical skills and apply content knowledge. The InTASC alignment of course-and clinical-assignments, readings, and experiences aligned to the EPP’s commitment to ensuring candidates are prepared to support access for all P-12 students for college-and career-readiness.

EXAMPLES OF EXCELLENCE IN PRACTICE

• The EPP established partnerships with mutually beneficial collaborations from P-12 schools and school divisions, as well as other appropriate organizations
1. In 2016, an EPP CAEP Rubric Team collaborated, using the CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments, with P-12 partners. In 2018, the EPP faculty and School of the Arts faculty revised the Clinical Evaluation Continuum (CEC) rubric and provided revisions. The CEC Guidance Document provides evidence of the development of the instrument and methods used by stakeholders to provide reliability and validity.
2. Three times per year, a Clinical Experience Advisory Board (CEAB) comprised of cooperating teachers, principals, Clinical Faculty, and EPP faculty and staff meets to discuss candidate preparation, mutually beneficial projects, candidate entry and exit, and other ideas from the field to contribute to the EPP's continuous improvement.
3. The EPP and school divisions have established a vetting system in conjunction with the Metropolitan Educational Alliance (META) to identify quality mentors or Clinical Faculty for the culminating clinical experience across all programs. The VCU Clinical Faculty Program identifies exemplary K-12 teachers who want to work with VCU pre-service teachers and provides them with professional development to become effective mentors.
4. Longstanding partnerships have been cultivated through strong collaborative relationships and documented with Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
• The EPP works with partners to ensure the sufficiency (e.g., in-depth, breadth, coherence, and duration) of opportunities provided for candidates to practice the application of course knowledge in diverse clinical conditions with P-12 students with differing needs.
1. Consistent with the School of Educations’ urban-serving mission, the EPP works with four key partner school divisions in Region 1 in which 98% of candidates complete clinical experiences (practicum and intern/extern, student teaching). These divisions all have racially diverse student populations, high percentages of economically disadvantaged students, and relatively high percentages of students with special needs.
2. Our candidates exceed expectations for all clinical experiences based on the VDOE Regulations. The EPP candidates complete an average of 200 hours before the final culminating experience, including 150 hours of direct teaching during a 16-week culminating experience. Programs leading to multiple grade level endorsements such as Special Education P-12 have multi-grade level experiences in early elementary and high school.
3. Initial candidate pre-service impact on student learning is assessed by the University Supervisor and school site principal. Data indicate candidates provide evidence of positive impact on student growth and/or learning. These findings are corroborated through evaluation of the student intern by the school placement principal, with recent data indicating candidates demonstrate Acceptable, approaching Target, performance on the CEC.

IMPROVEMENTS EMERGING FROM THE SELF-STUDY

• In late 2018, the Clinical Experience Advisory Board (CEAB) was established. The CEAB’s purpose is to ensure quality field experiences by: 1) partnering with stakeholders to address program, practice, research, and policy issues relevant to the preparation of teachers and other educational specialists; 2) receiving PreK-12 feedback on aspects of the clinical experiences, assessments, and evaluations thus providing input on potential program enhancements and candidate strengths and needs.
• The EPP is working toward the incorporation of multiple performance-based clinical assessments at key points within the program (especially in early-clinical experiences) to demonstrate candidates' early development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions resulting in a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students.

VCU's EPP consists of programs in the School of Education (SOE), School of the Arts, and the Extended Teacher Preparation Program with the College of Humanities and Sciences. Art and Music Education are based in The School of Arts and have oversight of degree completion requirements. As a result of this collaboration across the SOE and School of Arts, clinical experiences and related documentation for Art and Music often must align with multiple accreditation standards and school-related procedures (e.g., CAEP, NASM, NASAD). The EPP's self-study seeks to highlight the evidence-based quality assurance system and data surrounding our continuous improvement of clinical experiences.

The co-construction of clinical preparation arrangements and a shared responsibility model for decision-making and continuous improvement is comprehensively captured in key evidence to address Standard 2 components 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. **Various clinical terms used across the EPP are reflected in a summary terminology document (19# exhibit).

Standard 2 Data Sources

2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

Co-Construction of Instruments Clinical Continuum Observation Tool: The EPP CAEP Rubric Team, formed in 2016, collaborated to review, the Clinical Evaluation Continuum (CEC) in response to the new 2013 CAEP Initial Standards. Through iterative cycles of review, the group revised item language and developed new items as needed to ensure alignment of Continuum items to the proficiencies detailed in CAEP Standard 1 components. The CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments and CAEP Evidence Guide informed item revisions and new item development. The Clinical Evaluation Continuum Guidance Document details the development of the measure and the methods employed by various stakeholders to investigate evidence for reliability and validity (86.1). In academic year 2016-17, faculty from the SOE and School of the Arts reviewed the revised rubric and provided suggested revisions individually and collectively as program groups.

The Partnership Engagement Report (20) brings together various aspects of components in Standard 2 by highlighting processes and activities that occur in meetings with partner school divisions. These include the SOE's Student Services Center (SSC) clinical staff, university faculty, cooperating mentor teacher meetings and orientations, teacher recruitment days, orientations of clinical educators and clinical educator meetings, placement and removal processes, and evaluations of university supervisors and cooperating mentor teachers.

The Diversity of Placements data comparison (39) reflects the diversity of clinical location by program and percent of candidate placements from spring 2018 to fall 2019. These data represent our strongest partnerships used consistently for the majority of experiences in the metropolitan Richmond area; Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond Public Schools, Chesterfield County Public Schools, and Hanover County Public School Division. Occasionally, circumstances for candidate placements result in collaboration with other school divisions within Virginia, that are arranged on a case-by-case basis. These divisions have racially diverse student populations, economically disadvantaged students, and relatively high percentages of students with special needs. These longstanding partnerships have been cultivated through strong collaborative relationships and documented with various memorandums of understanding (21).

The Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (21) serves as a foundation for our school division clinical partnerships. The MOUs state shared responsibility is a natural part of the process for candidate placement (practicum or intern/student teacher); the MOUs articulate the parties' desire to promote mutual understanding and cooperation. As noted in the MOU, the Student Services staff shares information with schools about candidates who are seeking clinical placements, while divisions identify Cooperating Mentor teachers or Clinical Faculty who satisfy MOU qualifications and match them with candidates.

The Continuous Improvement Task Force (CITF), established in 2018, serves as the EPP's accreditation leadership team to ensure EPP (unit-level) continuous improvement. The CITF met bi-monthly to review policies, procedures, as well as curriculum and unit-level assessment inputs and outcomes data, to derive interpretations for opportunities to advance the EPP toward CAEP Standards. CITF membership is reflective of all EPP faculty program coordinators, Student Service Staff, Admission administrators, and Assessment Office administrators (24).

In late 2018, as faculty and stakeholders determined a need for an EPP-wide systematic approach to evaluation and expansion of clinical experiences across all programs, the Clinical Experience Advisory Board (CEAB) was established (23). The CEAB's purpose is to ensure quality field experiences by cooperatively working with educational stakeholders to address program, practice, research, and policy issues relevant to the preparation of teachers and other educational specialists. The bi-annual meeting minutes from the CEAB (23) provides evidence the EPP collaborates with stakeholders to a) develop mutually agreeable expectations for placement process, b) candidate entry, c) preparation and d) exit in order to link theory and practice as well as to share accountability for candidate outcomes.

Examining the minutes of the Professional Education Coordinating Council (PECC) (25) The PECC meets once per academic semester to engage stakeholders across campus and division partners. PECC engaged stakeholders from the College of Humanities & Sciences and School of the Arts and division partners in the review of State Council Higher Education (SCHEVE) proposals for the 5 new undergraduate programs (April 2019; 25). The Associate Dean of Humanities is an active partner in PECC discussions and decision making. Additional alignment evidence is highlighted in the examination of meeting minutes within exhibit 25.

SOE secondary faculty maintain knowledge of discipline-specific changes related to the undergraduate major curriculum through informal faculty relationships. In support of informal relationships/communication, meetings with Humanities and Sciences faculty and administration have occurred annually since 2019 around the alignment of discipline-specific undergraduate majors with the new VDOE Regulations for Approved Programs (40). Collaboratively, SOE and Humanities & Sciences faculty review candidate success related to the Praxis Subject Assessment pass rate and curriculum sequences. Recent meetings and collaboration on content alignment have improved content faculty members' knowledge of concepts assessed by Praxis Subject Assessments.

The clinical culminating experience (internship/externship/student teaching) orientation meeting (35) at the beginning of each semester provides a forum for shared understandings and expectations. The orientation features an inspirational community guest speaker, followed by school-level reminders, TK20 system introduction, and timelines. Following the whole group session, candidates, school-based educators, and supervisors meet separately for program introductory and informational activities, ending the evening with their respective candidates.

Various stakeholders provide feedback on EPP clinical experiences to support triangulation of data from multiple lenses on candidate performance, the experiences, and partnerships. Evaluation survey data for all programs are collected using the University approved survey systems, REDCap, or via forms in the Tk20 assessment system. Procedures for administration and timing of evaluation surveys are detailed in the Quality Assurance System handbook (QAS;85.1) for each evaluation survey measure (30). Data are discussed in component 2.2 from the Principal Evaluation of Candidates (6), Cooperating Teacher/University Supervisor peer evaluations (29), and Candidate Evaluation of Clinical Experience (27), aggregated at the program and EPP level each semester and annually. Faculty and staff data review and discussion are reflected in various meeting minutes (23, 24, 95).

2.2 Clinical Educators

The EPP and P-12 school partners strive to co-select clinical educators with professional field experience, the ability to positively impact P-12 student learning, and mentor candidates by using effective observation skills, providing timely and effective feedback, and engaging in professional discussions. The EPP collaborates with partner schools and related agencies in Region 1 division schools within a 100-mile radius to select clinical educators. The majority of clinicals are completed in four divisions within Henrico, Hanover, Chesterfield, and Richmond Public Schools. The frequency of placements in the surrounding division and associated diversity is highlighted in the Diversity of Placements data comparison (39). Almost 98% of candidates are placed in partnership schools. A list of all clinical faculty and their relevant qualification experiences can be found in CAEP AIMs Table 4. Terminology used across initial program clinicals is outlined in exhibit 19.

The EPP co-selects, prepares, evaluates, supports, and seeks to retain high-quality clinical educators in both the University and division schools. The preparation for clinical educators begin with selection criteria (31). The EPP and school divisions have established a vetting system in conjunction with the Metropolitan Educational Training Alliance (META) to identify quality mentors or Clinical Faculty(CF) for the culminating clinical experience across all programs. The VCU Clinical Faculty Coordinator confirms an active list of CF or those in training who meet the above criteria and are willing to serve as clinical educators for various culminating clinical experiences, and who have been approved by their building administrators. META is a partnership among Chesterfield County Public Schools, Hanover County Public Schools, Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond Public Schools, and VCU's SOE. Established in 2001, META's mission (26) is to enhance teaching quality in the metro-Richmond area by identifying needs, opportunities, and resources for strategic professional development to improve student learning by improving the preparation, effectiveness, and retention of high-quality teachers. The META Planning Council consists of the staff development directors or other designated representatives from partner school divisions, the Clinical Faculty Coordinator, the Chair of the VCU Department of Teaching and Learning, and the director of the VCU Center for Teacher Leadership.

The VCU Clinical Faculty Program identifies exemplary K-12 teachers who want to work with VCU pre-service teachers and provides professional development for them to become effective mentors. To earn the CF designation, teachers in the META divisions must submit a written application, complete five modules of training, and submit a portfolio, including a video or audio of a coaching session, to demonstrate their coaching skill (33). Details on the VCU Clinical Faculty Program can be found https://ctl.vcu.edu/clinical-faculty/.

The CF training is based on legacy Santa Cruz New Teacher Center mentor teacher training (33). The Center for Teacher Leadership (CTL) at VCU SOE is one of only two national training sites licensed to conduct this highly successful and widely recognized mentoring system. CF and division partners find this training mutually beneficial in developing quality coaching skills, opportunities for leading training workshops among the group, and collaborating with university faculty and staff on clinical experience development and evaluation. CF qualifications and eligibility can be found in exhibits 31 and 33.

The Coordinator of the Clinical Faculty program uses the clinical module in rGrade (rGrade is Educational Informatics' data management system) to maintain retention data on CF. Annually, CF are asked to notify program administration of any changes in their teaching assignments and program continuation decision. CF status is recorded by the program administration using rGrade when teachers notify administration that they are retiring, leaving the school division, leaving the classroom for administrative or leadership positions, etc. CF are required to renew every five years to retain CF status (32). Each academic year, the Coordinator of the Clinical Faculty Program provides META division representatives an updated list of CF, teachers in CF training (33), and those who need to renew.

University-Based Clinical Supervisors are selected to support educator candidates and CT/CFs. The hiring process and selection qualifications are outlined (34). P-12 experience in teaching or administration is required with appropriate subject area experience whenever possible (AIMS Table 4). Occasionally, significant experience in the field, along with recommendations, qualifies a University Supervisor without a master's degree (e.g., Art Education CF with significant teaching experience recommended by both partner schools and Art department). All music education university clinical supervisors are full-time faculty in the Music Department. The majority of the SOE and Art Education university supervisors are hired as term-contracted employees. An orientation meeting is held each semester, in conjunction with a meet and greet with new intern/extern candidates, to provide training and resources to university clinical supervisors returning and new (35).

Use of 2.2 evidence for continuous improvement

Each year candidates work with P-12 Clinical Faculty (CF) and Cooperating Teachers/Mentors (CMT) in a variety of settings during their culminating clinical experiences. The Qualification Chart (31) highlights the profile and demographics of school-based mentors/CF over the past three cycles of data collection. Data are provided for the Fall 2017- Spring 2019 academic years and by program assignment. Reported data were collected via paperwork submitted as part of the CMT/CF selection process, as well as the mandatory online CF/CMT training starting in 2019. Data are presented for those who submitted the requested demographic information. Qualification data show that the CF/CMT teachers who work with candidates have several years of experience in P-12 settings (minimum of 5). The more recent assignments of CMT have less experience given the increasing educator shortage and high turnover rates in the region. Overall, CF/CMT are highly educated; more than half have a master's degree. Some differences exist between school-based educators for the endorsement areas of Art and Music education (higher percentage of bachelor's degree). Those that completed the required online training are also diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender, though the majority are women and white. During data analysis in 2018, we learned that data records were incomplete, and not all CMTs submitted the requested demographic information during the hiring process. As a result, data were grouped across multiple years (Fall 2017/Spring 2018/Fall 2018). We recognized this as an area of further development and implemented a demographic survey component to the new online orientation for CF/CMT in spring of 2019. The launch of the online orientation provided a systematic process to ensure more complete demographic data from all P-12 school-based educators working with candidates in culminating experiences. The majority of the EPP programs offer spring semester culminating experiences.

To monitor the selection and effectiveness of the school-based and university supervisors, each semester, all candidates complete the Candidate Evaluation of Clinical Placement for their CT/CMT and US (27). The Coordinators of Clinical Placements and Clinical Faculty Program review these evaluations and recommend clinical educators and university supervisors for future placements. When needed, the Executive Director of Accreditation in conjunction with the Coordinator of Clinical Experiences meets with division human resources administrators (P-12 placement liaison) to move, remove, or request specific clinical educators. The EPP recognizes the need for partners to strengthen the process to co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators (CT & US) as detailed in the new 2019 Strategic Plan (94). Find a chart presentation of the proposed plans for continuous improvement related to the Strategic Plan and CAEP Standard 2 (101).

Results of the Candidate Evaluation of Clinical Placement reflect feedback between the fall 2017 and spring 2020 semesters (27). Specific survey results and summary are found in exhibit #27. In reviewing the candidates' responses across all cycles, candidates had a positive experience but felt unprepared (slightly higher ratings in 2017), however, they rated both the school-based and university supervisor as highly supportive. Various hiring decisions and training needs are informed by data trends over multiple semesters. Additionally, the Coordinator of Clinical Placements and Licensure integrates this feedback into future placement decisions and maintains a list for clinical faculty who do not meet the EPP standards of practice.

Principals' feedback indicates candidates demonstrate Acceptable, approaching Target performance for the reporting cycles of 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020. Response Scale used: 5/6 Target; 3/4 Acceptable; 2/1 Beginning; 0 Unacceptable. Principals' evaluation of the candidates (6) included questions about planning, engaging student learning, positive learning environment, assessing student learning, professional skills, impact on student learning, and advocacy for equity and family engagement. The final two questions ask principals to compare the candidate with other EPP candidates (average ratings) and employability (above average ratings).

Pre-Culminating Clinical Experiences (practicum, service learning): The process for selecting high-quality school-based clinical educators or cooperating teachers for candidate placements is primarily the responsibility of the Placement Coordinator in conjunction with P-12 administrators, with input from teachers, candidates and faculty program coordinators. Placement Coordinator works with candidates to identify potential placement divisions and reaches out to principals or to appropriate personnel (if this is a new partnership to be developed). Principals identify those teachers who are highly qualified and align with qualification criteria. Principal and CT usually provide an in-school orientation for the candidate and review candidate application materials to finalize the placement. Many of the graduate-level Special Education candidates are currently employed fulltime in some capacity with the partner divisions. The program faculty work collaboratively with the candidate building supervisor and university supervisor to ensure all clinical assignments are completed.

Many initial teacher education courses require a school-based activity with specific goals/objectives (37, 38). Division liaisons collaborate with faculty and the EPP Field Placement Coordinator to ensure the placements meet the objectives. In collaboration with school principals or other division liaisons, the Field Placement Coordinator from the EPP (SSC) organizes field placements, ensuring that candidates participate in a variety of clinical experiences that include different grade levels and diverse school settings. Field placements are recorded in the Student Services rGrade, which allows for a simple search to provide a list of each candidate's past placements. In determining the internship placement, each candidate's past field placements are reviewed for a variety of school experiences and grade levels. The Field Placement Coordinator ensures that each candidate receives placement in diverse settings (39). Additional details regarding the diversity of placements and EPP diverse school classifications are provided below in component 2.3.

The Clinical Faculty Coordinator and Executive Director of Licensure and Accreditation offer one meeting per academic year with University Supervisors together to review policy updates or provide additional training (35). The focus of the meetings varies depending on the current needs; interrater reliability training, training on using assessment instruments, strategies for coaching, and concerns. Cooperating teachers and university supervisors are provided an electronic copy of the Clinical Handbook (37.2), as well as a link to the online version. The handbook contains individual sections for the cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and teacher candidate, which specify expectations and responsibilities (37).

A web-based orientation was launched in Fall 2019 (36) to ensure a consistent message of expectations and resources to all supervisors and cooperating teachers/mentors across initial programs. In conjunction with the semester face to face orientation, the web orientation supports the collection of program feedback and demographic data on the quality of supervisors, CF, and CT for the culminating experiences (31). The data are organized, analyzed, and stored by Clinical Faculty Coordinator and Internship Coordinator and monitored by the Executive Director of Accreditation and Licensure. The online orientation was co-developed by the Clinical Faculty Program Coordinator, Experienced Clinical Faculty, Early Childhood Generalist Teacher, and the Director of Licensure and Accreditation.

The Intern/Externship Teaching Handbook (37.2) is a collaboratively created resource for all school-based teachers, candidates, and university supervisors. The handbook was created with EPP and state-guided information along with information gathered from clinical partnerships. The handbook is reviewed and updated regularly to reflect any changes necessary as recommended by stakeholders. The handbook provides students, clinical educators, and university supervisors with valuable information about the EPP (37.2). Additional handbooks provide program-specific policies and procedures (37.1).

The performance of clinical educators is informally evaluated at least annually during active service. University Supervisors are hired and managed by individual programs and are evaluated in one or both of the following ways: Full-time SOE employees holding CF positions are evaluated annually by their department chair or through the informal clinical evaluation surveys.

Although the EPP does not formally evaluate school-based educators and university-based supervisors, University Supervisors are evaluated each semester by both the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher. The evaluation results are collected and shared at the department chair level to inform future hiring and with the Clinical Placement/ Internship Coordinator level for future selection and supervisor retention. Disaggregated candidate data are reflective of survey results between fall 2017 through spring 2020 semesters (28, 29). Result narrative is provided in exhibits 28 & 29. More detailed evaluation reports associated with specific cooperating teachers' results rated below mean average of 2 of multiple survey items were recently implemented in response to program administration request (35; March 2020).

2.3 Clinical Experiences

Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structured to have multiple assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, exhibit #1, that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students. These assessments demonstrate alignment of coursework with field experiences and expectations, including teaching strategies. The assessments lend themselves to collaboration between candidates, faculty, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers (1). Analysis of candidate performance in their culminating clinical experiences (fall 2017, spring 2018, fall 2018, spring 2019) shows that nearly all candidates meet standards of practice on every item of the CEC (1) and impact on student learning assessment (3).

Minimum expectations for all clinical experiences are based on the VDOE Approved Program Regulation competencies. Candidates exceed the required minimum of 300 clock hours, including 150 hours of direct teaching during a culminating experience or 10 consecutive weeks (38). Programs leading to multiple grade levels such as Special Education PK-12 are required (37.1) to have multi-grade level experiences (early & high school). All EPP programs ensure diverse settings by grade level and school profile demographics (39).

The EPP's diversity category formula is based on demographic data collected by VDOE for each building/district across the state (39). The EPP's goal is that each candidate has at least one experience with one of the four diversity categories (39). Ideally, all candidates would experience each of the diversity criteria throughout the preparation program. Data reflect the spring 2018-fall 2019 completers' diversity of placements across program experience disaggregated by program (Initial- Tab 2). In a three-year cycle, 95% of 561 initial candidates were placed in a diverse setting and additionally with at least 1 category tracked by the VDOE.

The EPP partners with P-12 divisions to provide multiple field experiences in classrooms where candidates develop pedagogical skills and apply content knowledge. Within the consolidated Clinical Scope and Sequence Matrix (38), each program offers the specific alignment of clinical embedded courses with progressive outcomes, minimum hours required, and technology used for partner collaboration or candidate learning opportunities. Furthermore, the scope and sequence matrix highlight the depth, breadth, diversity, coherence and duration of clinical experiences for the EPP. The InTASC alignment tables (1) further detail course- and clinical- assignments, readings, and experiences aligned to the EPP's commitment to ensuring candidates are prepared to support access for all P-12 students for college- and career-readiness. Experiences increase in complexity as candidates progress through their program from early clinical experiences & finally the 16-week culminating clinical experience. Through intentional planning and feedback during meetings with stakeholders (23), the EPP has moved to a more collaborative approach to constructing field experiences (37.2).

Candidates practice their developing knowledge and skills in appropriate clinical settings during progressively complex clinical experiences in collaboration with division partners. While assignments found in early clinical experiences are not program key assessments, formative and summative feedback is used to monitor candidate progress in multiple skills such as technology, assessment, and learner differentiation (1). As discussed in Standard 1, the mid-program lesson plan and dispositions are collected to monitor early clinical experiences skills (86.2). Finally, many of the early clinical experiences use the evaluation criteria from the CEC (86.1) to document progression of common student outcomes throughout the program (such as beginning level or acceptable levels). Detailed descriptions and evaluation tools of the early field and culminating clinical experiences are found in program clinical handbooks (37) and the Scope and Sequence document (38).

During the culminating clinical experiences across all programs, both the Cooperating Teacher and University Supervisor assess the candidate at mid and final experiences using the CEC (86.1). The final assessment is the summative program assessment of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Application of a longitudinal and developmental rubric (Clinical Continuum) supports shared understanding for the candidate on professional expectations of a beginning teacher and supports monitoring of candidate growth and progression in knowledge, skills, and dispositions through the program. Data results and extensive analysis from the Clinical Continuum are discussed in Standard 1 to support candidate outcomes.

Closing Statement

Documents provide evidence of continual collaboration with field partners to co-create meaningful and mutually beneficial partnerships. These provide candidates with opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills via relevant clinical experiences. Two areas for further exploration are the effectiveness of the established partnerships in urban and high need schools and more intentional focus on early clinical experience co-construction and documentation of performance-based outcomes. We continue to examine ways to develop and improve shared responsibility for candidates' performance outcomes.

Future Implications: The examination of opportunities presented for continuous improvement will be examined in alignment with the SOE's 2020 Strategic Plan implementation in exhibit (101). The EPP has prioritized a commitment to ensure that both the EPP and stakeholders align expectations for clinical experiences with best practices for urban and high need communities.

Summary of Evidence and Supporting Documentation:

• 19: Clinical Terminology
• 20: Partnership Engagement Report
• 39: Diversity of Placements data comparison
• 24: Continuous Improvement Task Force (CITF) Meeting Minutes
• 25: Professional Education Coordinating Council (PECC)
• 23: Clinical Experience Advisory Board (CEAB) Meeting Minutes
• 33: CF Qualifications and Eligibility
• 31: Clinical Educator Qualification Chart
• Table 4: Qualification Table for EPP-based Clinical Educators
• 37.2: Link to Intern/Externship Teaching Handbook
• 37.1: Program Handbooks
• 85.1: Quality Assurance System handbook (QAS)
• 38: Scope and Sequence document

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 appropriate for their professional specialty field.

SUMMARY

Clinical and field-based components of advanced programs are focused on the integration and application of the respective program knowledge bases in a practical setting. Respectively, programs have identified the knowledge, skills, or dispositions needed for the application of the knowledge base, designed instructional strategies for teaching these skills, and developed a system for assessing candidate performance in each of these areas. 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.

Candidates in these programs are often full-time employees with a local school division during program matriculation, so their clinical experiences are often tied to their employment. Faculty and other building administrators provide support and supervision. Finally, the EPP Phase-in Plans will expand on the evidence of shared decision responsibility models. These models involve activities such as collaborative review or revision of clinical instruments and evaluations; collaborative review, or revision of the structure and content of clinical/practical activities.

EXAMPLES OF EXCELLENCE IN PRACTICE

• Develop and maintain partnerships with close collaborators
1. In 2019, the Education Leadership Advisory Board (ELAB) was launched to create a systematic structure for the engagement of stakeholders. The ELAB is comprised of P-12 leaders who assist in forecasting leadership needs, provide insight into current educational issues, and offer recommendations for enhancing leadership preparation.
2. Several P-12 clinical educators and administrators collaborate with the EPP and teach education courses. P-12 school partners invite EPP faculty to be active members of the local School Board, School-based Strategic Plan Committee, and Professional Development providers. For example, the Math Specialist and School Counseling programs have strong co-teaching models that are vital to the success of the partnership and candidate impact.
3. While our advanced programs have a long history of partnerships and collaboration, our Phase-in Plans will focus on the documentation of partnership effectiveness and level of mutually beneficial outcomes. Exemplary partnership evidence can be found in various division or state-wide requested cohorts for Educational Leadership, Reading Specialist, and Math Specialist.
• Emerging evidence that through the partnerships, the programs provide diverse and developmental clinical experiences with opportunities for Advanced-Level candidates to practice applications of specialized content knowledge and professional skills.
1. Clinical experiences are sequenced across programs and have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions characteristic of the profession.
2. The importance of diversity is a core value throughout advanced clinical experiences as described in the Conceptual Framework, and 2019 School of Education Strategic Plan.

IMPROVEMENTS EMERGING FROM THE SELF-STUDY

• The EPP developed a single Phase-in Plan for all advanced programs to formalize the co-construction of effective clinical experiences and refinement of assessment procedures and practices. The Phase-in Plan provides detailed information to scaffold progress for the EPP, such as a timeline for implementation, specific steps and strategies, methods for ensuring data quality, and procedures for data review and use for continuous improvement. Specifically, the following goals are outlined in the Phase-in Plan will drive the EPP’s strategy implementation for the next three years: 1) Enhance and evaluate the effectiveness of mutually beneficial P-12 school and community partnerships, and 2) Document a Shared Responsibility Model.
• Advanced programs will convene meetings with primary partners (e.g., divisions with formal cohorts) to operationalize expectations for shared decision making around aspects of candidate preparation and opportunities for practice.
• Utilization strategies of Tk20 are in development to centralize and manage the collection of placement information and candidate assessment data in all program clinical experiences.

In spring 2020, based on findings from an evidence gap analysis related to the new CAEP Advanced Standards, the faculty in collaboration with the Director of Assessment and Executive Director of Licensure and Accreditation developed a single Phase-in Plan for all advanced programs to address Standard A.2. The EPP organized plans to formalize the co-construction of effective clinical experiences and refinement of assessment procedures and practices. The Phase-in Plan provides detailed information to scaffold progress for the EPP, such as a timeline for implementation, specific steps and strategies, methods for ensuring data quality, and procedures for data review and use for continuous improvement (44).

The plan (44) provides an opportunity for a centralized approach to the continuous improvement of partnerships and high-quality clinical practices across all advanced programs. The first step for implementation of the Phase-in Plan will require the identification of key faculty collaborators in content expertise, to support existing program coordinators, across all programs. The plan highlights that Advanced programs will convene meetings with primary partners (e.g., divisions with formal cohorts) to operationalize expectations of continuous and shared decision making for aspects of candidate preparation and practice opportunities. Specifically, the following goals are outlined in the Phase-in Plan and drive the EPP's strategy implementation for the next three years: 1) Enhance & evaluate the effectiveness of mutually beneficial P-12 school and community partnerships and 2) Document a shared responsibility model.

Standard A.2 Data Sources

A.2.1 Partnership for Clinical Preparation

Advanced programs have a long history of partnerships and collaboration. Informal agreements and integration of co-teaching/assessment models (47) are very prevalent across all advanced programs. Exemplary partnership evidence can be found in various division or state requested cohorts for Educational Leadership, Reading Specialist, and Math Specialist programs. Formal stakeholder mutually beneficial agreements for roles and responsibilities are highlighted in the sample MOUs (43). The regional engagement across the state, local, and community agencies for clinical experience development, assessment, and evaluation by the Counseling program are exemplary models for programs across the EPP(41).

Existing evidence identified opportunities to evaluate and enhance P-12 partnerships to support high-quality clinical experiences and engage partners in co-constructing mutually beneficial arrangements for clinical preparation for advanced candidate preparation. The EPP facilitates this co-construction and evaluation of clinical experiences with P-12 partners through periodic meetings of the Clinical Experience Advisory Board (CEAB) with faculty responsible for clinical curriculum (23); twice-annual meetings of the Professional Education Coordinating Council (PECC) with membership from area school divisions, each EPP educational department and/or unit, EPP leadership, and student representation (25); and program-specific advisory boards (e.g., Educational Leadership/Administration and Supervision advisory board (48). Additionally, in June 2019 (23), the CEAB was engaged by the Administration and Leadership faculty in the review of clinical experiences and requested feedback on division needs to ensure relevancy. Specific feedback received from stakeholders suggests intentional use of culturally relevant frameworks and leadership practices, as well as leadership globalization emphasis. The Ed Leadership Advisory Board was launched in 2019 (48) to create a systematic structure for the engagement of stakeholders. The purpose of the Educational Leadership Advisory Board (ELAB) is the co-creation of authentic leadership preparation that meets district needs. The ELAB is composed of P-12 leaders who assist in forecasting leadership needs, provide insight into current educational issues, and offer recommendations for enhancing leadership preparation, especially for the Administration and Supervision program.

School Counseling

Select personnel from Chesterfield County Public Schools, Henrico County Public Schools, Richmond City Public Schools, Hanover County Public Schools, and the Virginia Department of Education facilitate instruction for the school counseling program. Public-school partners who are district leaders in school counseling or practicing school counselors and VDOE School Counseling staff are active and annual participants in the co-creation and joint implementation of a variety of learning experiences used to provide developmentally appropriate experiences for our pre-service school counselors. These experiences range from annual presentations and programs preparing pre-service school counselors for their professional roles to co-planning and co-designing relevant coursework for our school counseling specialty courses, which are frequently taught by local leaders in school counseling. These collaborations help ensure that our advanced candidates are transformed into professional educators who are catalysts for learning and leading.

The Partnership Engagement Report brings together various aspects of components in Standard A.2 by highlighting collaborative activities that occur with partner school divisions (41). Partnerships are cultivated by faculty coordinators at the program level for advanced programs. Mutually beneficial partnerships exist in various forms and duration with local schools, central administration, and community organizations. Partnerships with various stakeholders allow collaboration on expectations and goals for clinical experiences. These partnerships focus on creating opportunities for joint input of clinical experiences characteristic of their professional specialization. Exhibit 41 outlines multiple examples of stakeholder involvement, committees, and workgroups designed to facilitate and maintain the collaboration and engagement process. One such regional partnership is the Area School Counseling Leadership Team. Area directors of school counseling collaborate with VCU and invited representatives from other local colleges and universities (Longwood, Virginia State University) to promote best practices, explore emerging trends in school counseling and enhance clinical experiences for graduate students and site supervisors. Membership of the School Counseling Leadership Team includes area directors of school counseling from Chesterfield, Henrico, Richmond, Williamsburg James City County, Hanover, and the VDOE School Counseling Specialist.

Educational Leadership

Co-Construction of Program Assessment

Collaboration with stakeholders was key in the development of the performance assessment implemented by the Educational Leadership - Administration and Supervision program as documented in the Key Advanced Program Assessments Guidance Documents (90.1). In the academic year of 2016-17, the Educational Leadership faculty reviewed program rubrics and made revisions to ensure alignment with the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NELP) and CAEP Frameworks for EPP Created Assessments. Subsequently, the EPP invited P12 partners to engage in a review of the measure. Specifically, educators from area school divisions with expertise in educational leadership rated the relevance of individual items, in an expert review activity to determine the content representativeness of the rubric items (Lynn, 1986). Four experts reviewed the Educational Intervention Plan, using the Clinical Observation Model to Improve Instruction, and the On-site Supervisor Assessment of Internship rubrics. Additional details regarding the procedures and results used for the co-construction and establishment of reliability and validity are outlined in the Guidance Document (90.1) The EPP will use the Education Leadership program's extensive procedures for collaboration as a model for improving stakeholder involvement with candidate and assessment evaluation across all other advanced programs in the coming semesters.

A.2.2 Clinical Experiences

At the time of the self-study, the advanced program clinical experiences are not centralized; however, they share some level of consistency alignment with the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) regulation minimum requirements. The School of Counseling is the only program that utilizes the Student Services Center to administrator clinicals. Each of our advanced programs requires extensive clinical experience to demonstrate the competency of their standards. Candidates in these programs are often full-time employees with a local division during program matriculation, so their clinical experiences are often tied to their employment, with faculty and other building administrators providing support and supervision.

All candidates seeking state licensure complete clinical experiences as components of their preparation programs. Clinical and field-based components of advanced programs are focused on the integration and application of the respective program knowledge bases in a practical setting. Each program has identified the knowledge, skills, or dispositions needed for the application of the knowledge base, designed instructional strategies for teaching these skills, and developed a system for assessing candidate performance in each of these areas. The clinical experiences are supervised jointly by faculty and school-based professionals. Clinical experiences are sequenced across programs and have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions characteristic of the profession (12,13). A program-by-program description of clinical and field-based experiences is provided in the Program Handbooks and Program Overview Documents (46). Specifically, some programs include clinical descriptions in the syllabi for practicum or clinical courses (e.g., Math Specialist, Reading Specialist Overview), while others use candidate handbooks (e.g., Educational Leadership, and School Counseling (46). Advanced licensure programs regularly seek input from P-12 clinical stakeholders to ensure that the programs prepare candidates for the specific demands and priorities of our school communities (25;48). Given the specific demands and context of each advanced licensure area, each program differs in its approach to collaborate with clinical partners and the means by which candidates demonstrate proficiencies characteristic of their professional specialization area.

Varied and Developmental Experiences:

Candidates are provided with a variety of field-based and clinical experiences. Within the consolidated clinical Scope and Sequence Matrix (45), each program offers the specific alignment of clinical embedded courses with progressive outcomes, minimum hours required, and technology used for collaboration or learning opportunities. Each program designs clinical experiences that allow candidates to practice applications of content knowledge and skills emphasized in advanced programs. Approaches to clinical experiences and practical application of content knowledge and skills in each program are highlighted in handbooks (46) and below:

School Counseling (Face to Face): All master's candidates must complete a practicum and internship. The practicum is a 100-hour clinical experience including at least 40 hours of direct service to clients. The internship is a 600-hour clinical experience including at least 240 hours of direct service to clients. Each course has additional requirements as well. During Practicum and Internship, candidates are expected to work with a diverse clientele. Diversity includes culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/partnership, language preference, or socioeconomic status. Candidates in the school counseling track must gain experience at the elementary (K-6 grade) level and the secondary (7-12 grade) level. Thus, Practicum and Internship must be at two different levels (elementary and 7-12 grade). Additionally, sites are limited to schools in Richmond, Henrico, Hanover, and Chesterfield. The Practicum must be completed in a coeducational environment in which at least 30% of the student population meets one of the following criteria: Limited English proficiency; ethnic/racial minorities; mental, emotional, or physical disabilities; or economically disadvantaged and participating in Title I, Head Start, or Free/Reduced Lunch Program.

Educational Leadership (Online Delivery): The focus of the internship is on planning, experiencing, and reflecting on the development of skills in areas that are defined in the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders and the National Educational Leader Preparation Standards. Both field-based, supervised internship experiences and course-embedded internship experiences are required for program completion. Taken together, the two sets of experiences (field-based experiences and experiences in Administrative Internship I: ADMS 670, Administrative Internship II: ADMS 671, and Administrative Internship III: ADMS 675) provide data to assess candidate progress throughout the program in attaining knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Additionally, there are three 1-credit internship courses providing support in developing an internship plan designed to meet personal leadership development goals and address licensure requirements. The courses are provided in a seminar format. Internship courses are taken to earn field-based internship hours under the supervision of a university supervisor and a site mentor.

Math Specialist (Hybrid)

Clinical experiences are incorporated into each of the mathematics teacher leadership courses in the program. The courses are TEDU 657 Mathematics Education Leadership I, TEDU 658 Mathematics Education Leadership II, TEDU 659 Mathematics Education Leadership III, and the externship experience, TEDU 680 Externship Proposal Seminar, and TEDU 700 Externship. Each clinical experience focuses on a different aspect of the mathematics specialist role in the school building (e.g. mathematics task and assessment development, mathematics coaching, etc.) and on working with a different school-based audience (e.g. children, teachers, administrators, or parents). Each experience provides an opportunity for students to use their mathematical knowledge and skills to develop a task, activity, or program to implement in their classrooms or school buildings. These experiences also provide opportunities for students to develop the professional dispositions of a mathematics teacher leader. Students also share the results of these experiences with the teachers and administrators in their school buildings. As part of each project, they receive feedback from school-based partners and incorporate the feedback in their analysis of the experience and their final report.

Course experiences are sequenced so that one experience builds upon the next as students progress through the mathematics teacher leadership program. The culminating, capstone experience in this program is the school-based externship. Students draw from the knowledge, skills, and dispositions developed in their prior clinical experiences to develop an in-depth project to implement in their school buildings. This experience takes place through a year-long course sequence. In TEDU 680 Externship Proposal Seminar, they develop a research-based plan for their externship project. In TEDU 700 Externship, they implement the proposal, collect data to analyze the effectiveness of the project and the impact on children's understanding of mathematics, and write a detailed report on the project results.

Reading Specialist (Online with Face to Face)

In the Reading Specialist program, candidates develop and apply their skills and knowledge in a structured progression of clinical experiences. In TEDU 561: Foundations of Reading Instruction, candidates complete three field-based experiences to learn and practice how to keep a running record, administer a developmental spelling assessment along with a lesson planned and implemented based on the results, and a read-aloud lesson planned and implemented to target comprehension strategy instruction. In READ 600: Analysis and Correction of Reading Difficulties, candidates learn a battery of assessments and administer them to a struggling student and then plan instruction to meet the student's needs based on the assessment results in approximately 11 45-minute sessions. In this first tutoring experience, candidates build on the skills and knowledge they learned in TEDU 561 by conducting running records during each tutoring session, administering a developmental spelling assessment and plan ongoing instruction to meet the student's specific needs, and incorporate a new text during each lesson to target fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing. In READ 605: Organizing and Implementing Reading Programs, the candidates must synthesize their knowledge and skills they gained in TEDU 561 and READ 600 to evaluate their school's literacy program. In READ 700: Externship in Reading is the second of the culminating courses in the Reading program and candidates generally take it in the spring semester of their second year in the program. In READ 605, taken in the fall semester, candidates write a proposal for an action research/teacher as a research project that they implement in the spring in their school.

Regular Supervisor Communication and Site Visits: Mentor building administrators and university supervisors provide informal feedback on candidates' progress to candidates during conferences and after observations. Formal feedback on their progress is provided to candidates via program key assessments: Math Specialist: Externship Project, Coaching Project; Education Leadership: Educational Intervention Plan, On-Site Supervisor Assessment for Internship Candidates, and Using the Clinical Observation model to Improve Instruction; Reading Specialist: Organizing and Implementing Reading Programs, Externship Action Research Report, and Internship; Counseling: Research Proposal Rubric; Clinical Evaluation Continuum: Dispositions Assessment (See 12,13).

Various stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on EPP clinical experiences to support the triangulation of data from multiple lenses on candidate performance, experiences, and partnerships. Evaluation survey data for all programs are collected using the University approved survey system, REDCap, or via forms in theTk20 assessment system. Procedures for administration and timing of evaluation surveys are detailed in the Quality Assurance System handbook (QAS)(85.1) for each evaluation survey measure. Advanced level programs regularly and systematically assess candidate performance through key assessments administered during clinical experiences. In addition to performance assessment, the assessments require candidates to apply content knowledge and skills that are emphasized in the program coursework proficiencies through a variety of assessment types, such as problem-based tasks or research activities that are characteristic of their professional specialization as described in Standard A.1 (44; Phase-in Plans).

Standard A.2 data quality Phase-In Plan

All key assessments align to CAEP Advanced Professional Skills (12, 13), the EPP Conceptual Framework, and faculty and P12 partners reviewed forms for content validity and accessibility for a response (e.g., ease of wording, response scales). The development of the assignment and associated rubric and efforts to establish evidence for reliability and validity are described in the existing Guidance Document for each assessment (90.1-90.4). The Phase-in Plan describes the proposed efforts to ensure rubrics meet or exceed the CAEP sufficient level and will be documented in the guidance documents over time. As outlined in the A.2 Phase-in Plan (44), assessments and the associated scoring rubrics will be co-constructed with P12 partners. Tests of content validity will be conducted to ensure relevancy.

Use of A.2 evidence for continuous improvement - TBA

Closing Statement

Clinical and field-based components of advanced programs are focused on the integration and application of the respective program knowledge bases in a practical setting. Each program has identified the knowledge, skills, or dispositions needed for the application of the knowledge base, designed instructional strategies for teaching these skills, and developed a Phase-in Plan to systematically assess candidate performance in each of these areas.

Future Implications: The EPP advanced programs have a long history of success and candidate's demonstration of their preparation and abilities in the field; however, there is limited evidence to document alignment with the new CAEP Advanced program standards as related to effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice. The EPP has prioritized a commitment to ensure that both the EPP and our stakeholders align expectations for clinical experiences with best practices for urban and high need communities within the SOE's Strategic Plan implementation (94). Finally, the EPP will expand on the evidence of shared decision responsibility models that involves activities such as collaborative review or revision of clinical instruments and evaluations; collaborative review, or revision of the structure and content of clinical/practical activities. The revised model, strategies, and timeline are articulated in our Advanced Program Phase-in Plan for Standard A.2 (44).

Summary of Evidence and Supporting Documentation:

• 41: Advanced Partnership Engagement Report
• 42: Advanced Clinical Placement Frequency
• 46: Advanced MOUs
• 44: A.2 Phase-In Plan
• 45: Advanced Scope and Sequence
• 46: Advanced Handbooks
• 23: CEAB Meeting Minutes