Clinical Partnerships and Practice

This document is written to include the original self-study (text in black), and for each standard the relevant CAEP offsite Formative Feedback Review (FFR) narrative (text in blue). COE's response to the FFR is incorporated throughout and at the end of each standard (text in red).

The following link takes the reader to the FFR comments along with the EPP's response.

Click here to see the EPP's response to the FFR


Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice

The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students' learning and development

The two sources of evidence used to demonstrate that the unit is meeting Standard 2 are field experience observation summary data (2A) and summary data on the survey completed by candidates on site professors (2B).


The quality of the COE's clinical partnerships and practices are measured through a combination of internally and externally validated instruments along with expert observations. The Teacher Education, Alternative and Special Education Licensure Programs base the observations forms on the Colorado Teacher Quality Standards. Candidates must demonstrate they possess the knowledge and skills articulated in CTQS. The instrument has six standards and additional elements. Artifact 2a is a summary of the observations for all TELP candidates for 2012, when new state standards were implemented, and 2013. The aggregate data represents six observations for each candidate: two by the site coordinator, two by the cooperating teacher and two by the UCCS University Supervisor (formerly the site professor). The candidates are formally observed multiple times over the course of their professional semester and assessed on each element of the standards with 'not met'; 'partially met'; 'met'; or 'fully met and more'. Since the summary is a composite of multiple observations, most candidates will have demonstrated mastery at least once so there are few scores reflected in the bottom two ratings.

The criteria for assessing the quality of candidate performance are established by the state through the definitions used in the CTQS and by program faculty, measured through multiple observations by multiple observers, and verified and triangulated through the artifacts candidates include in their portfolios.

Overall, the summary reflects that the vast majority of candidates attain mastery by the final observation. A quick analysis reveals an interesting detail. Of the 29 elements, and two years of data for each, secondary scores are higher, and generally substantially higher in 57 of the 58 instances. Further analysis is required to determine if the discrepancy is a result of the reviewers, the observation process itself, or actual differences in how candidates at different school levels perform. As a result studying observations results, TELP added a new lesson plan collection to ensure that elementary candidates were meeting the Association of Childhood Education International (ACEI) standards. As part of that assignment, the teacher candidates must be observed teaching all content areas as well as lessons which integrate art, music, and PE. There was also a requirement added in secondary to have a content specialist make a formal observation if the site professor was not highly qualified in a particular area.

All programs have developed surveys for program completers and employers. However, there's a substantial difference in the quality of the instruments and fidelity of administration. The Teacher Education Licensure Program has developed and routinely administered surveys to all program completers on perceived program quality, program satisfaction (both of which are addressed in Standard 4), the site coordinator and clinical faculty. The artifact representing the surveys (2b) can be found in the Electronic Exhibits. Candidates complete a survey consisting of 18 questions about their site professors, using a five point scale (1 = never; 2 = occasionally; 3= adequately; 4= frequently' 5=consistently). The survey, which is designed by the faculty to reflect professional practices of supervisors, has been used by hundreds of candidates and there is considerable consistency within and across cohorts. Results of the survey are used by the Director of Teacher Education and Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in determining if there are issues that need to be addressed with a specific site professor or whether that individual should not be allowed to continue in the role.

A summary of the means for the three years shows that the question that consistently scores highest is "The Site Professor met with me and discussed the observation with me as soon as possible" while "The Site Professor helped me relate to my cooperating teacher" was consistently the lowest. But even that reflects a small discrepancy in the level of satisfaction that candidates express for their supervisors. According to the survey, there is a high degree of approval. Of course, the TELP director and department chair possess the more granular reports for elementary and secondary levels that have been rolled into the summary.

Standard 2: SUMMARY

The College of Education has built a variety of strong, successful partnerships over the years. The readiness of faculty to address community demands has led to a positive impression with stakeholders and a strong willingness to accept interns. All programs have clearly defined placement processes, candidate expectations, and supervisory roles. Programs are intentional about practicum placements, ensuring that there's a documentable process verifying that each candidate is experiencing placements within diverse sites.

The Teacher Education and Alternative Education Licensure Programs have led the College in collecting the greatest range of observational and survey data and have done so consistently and on a frequent basis. The TELP data collected include candidate surveys, classroom observations performed on multiple occasions by three observers, Teacher Work Samples, and portfolio artifacts. All are housed in TaskStream and used not only in candidate assessment but program evaluation as well. Data collection in other programs has been more sporadic. However, the work performed by the Assessment and Accreditation Committee and the Assessment and Operations Specialist has highlighted the need for more consistency, uniformity, transparency and (when logical), cross-programmatic collaboration on developing common instruments, processes and schedules. There is an increased effort to ensure students experience placements with diverse populations, and faculty have been engaged in meaningful discussions about what diversity means, with a goal of determining a broader and more meaningful definition.

Programs have kept survey data indicating candidates' perceptions of the site and their cooperating teachers or supervisors. Results are generally analyzed by program coordinators to determine if placements will continue at that site or with a particular clinical supervisor. With programs, the next step of creating a report-out system for the department hasn't always occurred, but there is awareness that this particular feedback loop needs to be closed and initiatives well underway to do so. With TELP and SELP, there are regular discussions of the sites and placements and whether a school/teacher continues with the program in the site professor meetings. UCCSTeach will follow this practice as they build the volume of program completers. The quality of the placements is monitored through site and mentor teacher surveys, while candidate performance is measured multiple times through observations, surveys, portfolio assignments and dispositional data.