Washington, District of Columbia

September 2017

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER IN COMPONENT 3.1: SEED PARTNERSHIP TO INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF THE TEACHER WORKFORCE

Jennifer E. Carinci, Accreditation Director, Director of Research and Engagement, CAEP

Lewis McIlwain, Accreditation Associate, CAEP

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

CAEP RECOGNIZES THE INPORTANCE OF PREPARING

A DIVERSE POOL OF EFFECTIVE EDUCATORS.

CAEP is partnering with NCTR to help advance teacher diversity by improving the quality of educator preparation providers’ recruitment plans.

The partnership focuses on

1) the required contents of the recruitment plans

2) the criteria for reviewing those plans, and

3) the resources available to support preparation providers in developing, implementing, and monitoring effective recruitment plans.

CAEP is among the first round of USED’s SEED partnership awardees.

2

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

PARTNERSHIP OBJECTIVE

• Our partnership seeks to refine the evidence that CAEP requires for Component 3.1 and the criteria for demonstrating the sufficient level, based on evidence from the field.

• The partnership seeks to identify a set of evidence-based strategies and tools for diversifying the teacher workforce that can be shared with EPPs to support their efforts in developing and implementing data-informed recruitment plans, consistent with the expectations in Component 3.1.

3

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

THINK – PAIR - SHARE

• How do you recruit and retain high high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish your mission?

• To what extent are you successful in this area? How do you know?

4

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Text of CAEP Component 3.1

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.

5

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Current Sufficiency Criteria for CAEP Component 3.1

6

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Mapping Component 3.1

to Data Relevant to Other CAEP Components

• Standard 1

Data relevant to identifying and supporting the completion of high-quality candidates (in terms of their knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions)

• Standard 2

Mutually agreeable expectations (for candidate entry, preparation and exit) in clinical partnerships with P-12 schools

• Standard 3

Evidence of candidates’ academic achievement and selectivity throughout the program and at completion

7

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Mapping Component 3.1

to Data Relevant to Other CAEP Components (con’t)

• Standard 4

Performance of completers’; feedback from employers and completers’ on completers’ preparation; and employment milestones such as hiring, promotion, and retention

• Standard 5

quality assurance system is comprised of multiple measures that produce valid data and can monitor candidate progress, completer achievements, and provider operational effectiveness – that can be disaggregated by relevant dimensions such as candidate demographics and programs; regular and systematic assessment of performance against its goals; testing innovations; tracking results over time; acting upon measures of completer impact; appropriate stakeholders involved in program improvement and evaluation

8

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Analyses of EPP Evidence Submitted to Demonstrate

CAEP Component 3.1

• CAEP pulled evidence submitted by EPPs and formative feedback reports from reviewers for EPPs with accreditation decisions in April of this year (2017)

• We analyzed the recruitment and retention plans provided to us by each EPP with a goal of finding good practices that can be replicated by other EPPs in the future.

9

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Strengths Identified in Recruitment Plans

Variety of data sources

Disaggregating diversity data by ethnic group and/or graduate level.

Providing goals attached to a realistic timeline.

10

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Common Pitfalls Identified in Recruitment Plans

Limited evidence of being informed by data

Limited evidence or update on the process the recruitment plan has made

Limited reference to the retention goals

11

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING GUIDELINES AROUND

COMPONENT 3.1

• Focus on identifying clear, realistic goals that are obtainable in a reasonable amount of time.

• Provide evidence supported by data that their plan has seen progression, regression, or has stayed the same.

• Take ownership over their recruitment plans and take necessary measures to keep tabs on how the goals they have set are working out.

• Offer a clear definition of diversity.

12

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING GUIDELINES AROUND

3.1: Continued

• Define success for past activities that have been deemed successful.

• Goals should be data informed in terms of why they were selected and should include objectives.

• Recruitment and retention goals should be addressed separately.

13

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPPs with good examples of strengths

• While no recruitment and retention plan was perfect, a few did stand out above the rest. We will review the recruitment plans for 3 different EPPs that we will identify as EPP1, EPP2, and EPP 3.

• The recruitment plans provided by these EPPs have particular strengths worth noting that CAEP would like to see in the future.

14

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 1

• Provided strategies tied to the goal numbers they set for the school year.

• There is a recruitment calendar attached that outlines the events they plan to recruit at, and what specifically will take place there.

• They have tracked the progress that the recruitment plan has already made.

• There is already evidence that the EPP has met the diversity goals in many areas.

15

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 1: Continued

16

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 2

• Included tables with baseline data for three years beginning from 2013 and ending in 2016.

• Data were disaggregated by completers in Science, Mathematics, and Intervention Specialists.

• There are 5 years of target percentages that the EPP would like to hit ranging from 2016 and ending in 2021.

• The goals are specific.

17

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 2: Continued

18

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 2: ContinuedDeclared Education Majors and Minors

Fall 2014 majors/minors Fall 2015 majors/minors Fall 2016 majors/minors

M F Total M F Total M F Total

African American 2 1 3 African American 2 2 4 1 2 3

Asian American 0 0 0 Asian American 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caucasian 46 144 190 Caucasian 34 143 177 41 111 152

Hispanic 1 2 3 Hispanic 0 2 2 0 2 2

Multi-Racial 4 3 7 Multi-Racial 3 3 6 3 2 5

Native American 0 0 0Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Resident Alien 0 0 0 Native American 1 0 1 1 1 2

Unknown 2 0 2 Non-Resident Alien 1 0 1 0 0 0

Total 55 150 205 Unknown 0 1 1 0 2 2

Total 41 151 192 46 120 166

All UMU Declared Majors and Minors

Fall 2014 majors/minors Fall 2015 majors/minors Fall 2016 majors/minors

M F Total M F Total M F Total

African American 26 96 122 African American 28 89 117 35 116 151

Asian American 10 4 14 Asian American 10 3 13 11 7 18

Caucasian 925 871 1,796 Caucasian 896 820 1,716 858 831 1,689

Hispanic 22 18 40 Hispanic 26 18 44 23 35 58

Multi-Racial 31 53 84 Multi-Racial 29 42 71 24 43 67

Native American 4 0 4Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

0 0 0 1 1 2

Non-Resident Alien 27 34 61 Native American 6 6 12 7 8 15

Unknown 27 26 53 Non-Resident Alien 23 30 53 2 6 8

Total 1,072 1,102 2,174 Unknown 29 39 68 63 69 132

Total 1,047 1,047 2,094 1,024 1,116 2,140

19

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 3

• Good job with structuring their plan.

• Identified the problem, designing a solution, and examining the impact of the solution to the problem.

• Included tables to illustrate the possible tactics they could use to combat diversity struggles.

20

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

EPP 3: Continued

21

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C. 22

Reflections on

drafting a

data-informed

planning tool

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Draft Data-Informed Recruitment & Retention Plan Tool

• Is there any information you feel is missing?

• Are there any areas of the template you feel would be difficult for an EPP to complete?

• Describe how having a template would make it easier and/or harder for an EPP to provide a thoughtful recruitment plan?

• What additional resources would be helpful?

23

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Additional Resources

• NCTR report - Recommendations for State Support for Effective Teacher Residencies

• TN report – Preparation through Partnerships: Strengthening Tennessee’s New Teacher Pipeline

• Trailblazer Coalition report – Fixing the Broken Pipeline: Teacher Diversity and the Classroom

• San Francisco Teacher Residency report- Beyond Brochures: Practicing "Soul Care" in the Recruitment of Teachers of Color

• Branch Alliance for Educator Diversity (BranchED) - one-pager – website

• Coble, C. (2015). Teacher education performance assessment. Retrieved 6-28-17 at http://teacherpreparationanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TEPA-1-16-15.pdf

24

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.

Contacts:

• Jennifer Carinci

Accreditation Director, Director of Research and Engagement, CAEP jennifer.carinci@caepnet.org

• Lewis McIlwain Accreditation Associate, CAEP lewis.mcilwain@caepnet.org

25

Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C. 26

•Suggestions?

•Questions?

•Ideas?