Accreditation
The University of Bridgeport’s Graduate School of Education (SOE) received National Recognition for the Initial Licensure Programs from the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) in the fall of 2018. The School of Education will undergo their next review cycle in the spring of 2025.
The School of Education will add to the next review cycle a review of the advanced programs. The CAEP Advanced Program Standards were not yet available in 2018 when our initial review was conducted; the Advanced Programs maintain Connecticut State Accreditation through 2025.
All initial and advanced programs within the University of Bridgeport’s School of Education are fully approved by the State of Connecticut’s Board of Education.
The School of Education has received National Recognition from the following professional organizations for its initial and advanced certification programs:
- Elementary Education - ACEI (Association of Childhood Education Institute)
- Secondary English - NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English)
- Secondary Math - NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)
- Secondary Science - NSTA (National Science Teachers Association)
- Secondary History and Social Studies - NCSS (National Council for the Social Studies)
- Literacy Specialist - ILA (International Literacy Association)
- Literacy Consultant - ILA (International Literacy Association)
- Educational Administration & Supervision - ELCC (Educational Leadership Constituent Council)
CAEP accountability measures
Based upon recent data collected using completer observation, surveys, and employer surveys from graduates in our initial licensure programs, as well as institutional and national data, the following annual reporting measures provide a snapshot of the UB School of Education’s impact and outcomes from the 2021-22 academic year.
CAEP R4.1
The School of Education at University of Bridgeport relies on multiples measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of our programs as reported by program completers and employers. Those measures include quantitative survey data and classroom observations as well qualitative data gleaned from interviews and artifact reviews. CAEP requirements and Title II federal requirements ask Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) to evaluate the impact of their programming on student success, and thus test data is also collected.
During the 2021-2022 academic year, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to disrupt the collection of full and complete data. Despite this obstacle, the School of Education contacted our completers and their administrators for feedback. During the 2021-2022 academic year data collection cycle, thirteen (N=13) different graduates participated in the data collection (lesson observation, lesson plan submission, interview, student learning outcome data, and surveys).
CAEP R4.1a
Completer impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth
The state of Connecticut has implemented a policy in which all teachers must submit Student Learning Outcome goals to their administrators each spring as part of their yearly evaluations. Teachers are allowed to choose the best method for measuring their students’ growth in terms of their instruction. Teachers set initial goals for their students in October of each year. Then in February of each year they have the opportunity to revise these goals based on student progress thus far. Finally, in April of each year, teachers add their students’ final scores and analyze their yearly progress, at which time all data is submitted to their administrator. Voluntary data from the program completers participating in the annual interviews (noted below) indicated that the students of our program completers were progressing in achieving expected outcomes in their classrooms.
CAEP R 4.1b
Completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions
Through interviews, observations, and surveys, data about the School of Education program completers indicated their effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Interview results (N=5)
Five completers were interviewed using a standard semi-structured protocol consisting of six prompts on the following topics: use of differentiated instruction, managing challenging students, basic classroom management skills, the use of technology integration within lessons, translating the internship experience to the classroom, and the development of student assessment tools. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and then analyzed for consistent or divergent themes among responses to each of the six questions. Given the small sample, the results are not generalizable; yet, there are some common themes relative to strengths and areas for focused efforts. Overall, graduates shared that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact the learning environment; they noted that their ability to implement classroom management strategies effectively and address challenging student behaviors was compromised. Graduates felt confident in differentiating instruction and pointed out that post-pandemic instruction requires a deep toolbox of skills, including the incorporation of new technologies for both instruction and student learning. Graduates suggested the inclusion of case studies to further emphasize practice with real-world classroom scenarios. On the other hand, the internship was noted by all as an incredibly valuable part of the program because it enabled candidates to see and experience real-world classrooms and students.
Observation results (N=2)
The Danielson observation rubric is utilized in our School of Education to evaluate all student teachers during their field placement. The rubric consists of three domains:
- Domain I: Planning and Preparation
- Domain II: Classroom Environment & Instruction
- Domain III: Professional Responsibility
Two completers were observed by faculty from the programs in which the candidates were certified; one had been in the elementary program and one had been in the secondary mathematics program. Both completers scored at the proficient (level 3) and distinguished (level 4) on all categories of each domain of the Danielson rubric. Noted strengths for the secondary graduate were in Domain I: Planning and Preparation and Domain II: Classroom Environment & Instruction. Specifically, the secondary mathematics candidate excelled in creating standards-based and coherent instruction (1e), in techniques for questioning and discussion (3b), and student engagement (3c). The elementary graduate was adept at creating a positive and caring learning environment and establishing a culture for learning (2a, 2b) and in engaging students in learning (3c). In sum, this data demonstrates that University of Bridgeport School of Education program completers are proficient in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Completer effectiveness survey results (N=6)
The Graduate Completer Survey uses a 4.0 Likert scale (strongly agree-4, agree-3, disagree-2, strongly disagree-1) for completers to rate their effectiveness as a classroom teacher. The survey also provides information on completers’ perceptions regarding their preparation for the use of research, technology, instructional planning, differentiation, and content knowledge. The 30-question survey was sent to 138 graduates who student taught in the Fall of 2021 and the spring of 2022. Six graduates completed the survey: two Elementary Education, one Secondary Mathematics, one Secondary English, and two Music K-12 graduates. The results of the surveys are noted in the next section.
Question | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|
Develop an understanding of the content knowledge you teach. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Make content meaningful through a variety of strategies including explanation, modeling, representations, and examples. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Use student academic standards to guide planning and instruction. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Use state or district curriculum frameworks to guide planning and instruction. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Select the most effective content-specific teaching methods and practices that appropriately challenge students in the work of the discipline. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Develop an appropriate scope and sequence for units and lessons based on a logical and purposeful progression at an appropriate level of challenge for students. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
Use effective strategies to appropriately address challenging student behavior. | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Use effective strategies to appropriately address challenging student behavior. | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
Create a cognitively engaging classroom environment that promotes critical thinking. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Create a class climate that is responsive to and respectful of the learning needs of students with diverse backgrounds & performance levels including students with disabilities, gifted students, and ELLs. | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Use flexible grouping strategies as appropriate to foster meaningful student interaction and engagement with the content. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Plan for differentiated instruction, including modifications and accommodations in anticipation of student learning needs. | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Use effective classroom management strategies that foster a safe and supportive learning environment and establish appropriate standards and norms for behavior. | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
Foster real-world and/or cross-curricular connections through inquiry-based strategies of your content or discipline. | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Provide scaffolding that supports all students’ active participation in the learning activities. | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
Know how to adjust instruction when students are exceeding or not achieving learning objectives. | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
Use instructional strategies that effectively improve students’ numeracy and quantitative reasoning skills. | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
Use a variety of technologies as appropriate to promote deeper exploration and learning in the content areas. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Understand and implement a scientific research-based intervention (SRBI) framework to address individual learning needs within a classroom. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Use effective strategies to teach students with disabilities. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
Use effective strategies to teach English Language Learners. | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
Use summative assessments to identify students’ achievement or progress based upon predetermined criteria. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Use assessment data to plan for future instruction. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
Make informed judgements about student performance based on the results of an assessment. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
Provide effective, specific, timely feedback that helps students improve their performance. | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Collaborative effectively with colleagues to support student learning and growth. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Collaborate effectively with families to support student learning and growth. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Understand and uphold professional ethics, policies, and legal codes of conduct and understand the professional boundaries for interactions with students. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
Engage in relevant professional learning opportunities. | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Note: Survey Response N=6
Survey results: Given the small sample size of the survey (N=6), the results are not generalizable; yet the responses to the Likert-type questions and the open-ended feedback questions included on the survey provide valuable insights about completer effectiveness.
Strengths: Planning for instruction emerged as a reported strength among all completers. There was group consensus related to using state standards and district curriculum frameworks to guide planning and instruction. Six of six respondents reported they had strong understanding of content knowledge in their certification area and could make content meaningful through a variety of instructional strategies, including explanation, modeling, representations, and examples. Furthermore, respondents selected agree and strongly agree for the item about selecting the most effective content-specific teaching methods and practices that appropriately challenge students in the work of the discipline. Other strengths were found in the areas of assessment and collaboration, as indicated by agreement from all graduates in questions related to adjusting instruction during and between lessons, using summative and formative assessments to identify students' progress and plan for instruction based on results, and also collaborating effectively with both families and colleagues to support student learning and growth.
Areas for growth: An area for growth related to completers’ ability to use effective strategies to address challenging student behavior appropriately. Three of the six respondents felt they were not adequately prepared to address challenging student behavior and that more learning experiences related to classroom management would be appreciated. One graduate noted, “I feel like classroom management should be a course.”
Summary of measure 1 interviews, observations, and surveys
In sum, the data resulting from the interviews, observations, survey responses highlighted completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions. With limited responses (N=13) from completers, the results are not generalizable; yet they do offer valuable insights. Graduates of University of Bridgeport feel confident in their skills related to planning instruction aligned to state standards and district curriculum. They also feel equipped to engage students in learning and to create welcoming and affirming environments where all students are valued. One clear outcome of the data was the impact that the pandemic made on all students and educators and the need to learn new technologies for both instruction and student learning for hybrid environments. Also, graduates emphasized the importance of ongoing support throughout their first years in the classroom, particularly in translating classroom theory to real-world environments.
CAEP R4.2, R5.3
Satisfaction of employers
Graduates participating in the Measure 1 data collection were also requested to provide the name of their school administrator. Six administrators were contacted by email to complete the online survey to indicate their satisfaction with the graduate’s teaching effectiveness and progress, and four (N=4) administrators completed the online survey. The administrator survey that was used was the state-created survey that had been piloted and tested for validity and reliability. Administrators were asked to rate their level of agreement with 30 questions on a Likert-type scale of 1 - 4 (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). The questions were designed to ascertain the degree to which the administrator believed the graduate was prepared to implement effectively the teaching tasks relative to their content area. Results indicated that University of Bridgeport program completers are rated very highly in all areas. Three out of four administrators selected “agree” or “strongly agree” on all questions of the survey. Though results are not generalizable due to the limited number of responses, these employers were satisfied with the performance of our graduates. The School of Education will continue to pursue responses from administrators and will update this data as additional results are collected.
Stakeholder involvement
The School of Education invites key stakeholders to provide feedback for the initial and advanced programs. Reconstituted in 2023 as the Education Advisory Board, this group is comprised of superintendents, principals, and supervisors from school districts where our candidates complete their clinical field placements and where our School of Education has formed partnerships. The Education Advisory Board also includes full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, program coordinators, students, and directors whose feedback provides relevant suggestions for continuous improvement.
In alignment with the University of Bridgeport’s Strategic Planning process, the Education Advisory Board provided relevant feedback about the School of Education’s newly crafted Strategic Plan 2022-2027, which focuses on a new Mission Statement, Vision, Values, Focus Areas, Goals, and Strategies. Included in this Strategic Plan are six focus areas that address students; pedagogy and assessment; accreditation and program assessment; partnerships and field placements; diversity, equity, inclusion, belongingness, and social justice; and scholarship and research.
The School of Education also participates in the state-wide quarterly Connecticut Deans’, Directors’, and Certification Officers’ meetings sponsored through the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) for valuable information related to CSDE initiatives. In addition, as a member of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education - Connecticut (AACTE-CT), the School of Education supports the collegiality of educators throughout Connecticut universities and legislative advocacy for teachers and administrators.
CAEP R3.3
The state of Connecticut requires all teaching candidates to successfully meet the testing requirements for PRAXIS II, Foundations of Reading (CT 190), and the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) for initial certification. One hundred percent (100%) of University of Bridgeport program completers at the initial level have passed these three required assessments.
edTPA score results: 2021-22
edTPA is a performance-based, subject-specific assessment and support system used by teacher preparation programs throughout Connecticut and the United States to emphasize, measure and support the skills and knowledge that novice teachers need in order to be learner-ready. edTPA is a subject-specific assessment that features a common architecture focused on three tasks: Planning, Instruction, and Assessment. In the clinical placement semester, student teachers must prepare a portfolio that demonstrates readiness to teach through lesson plans designed to support their students' strengths and needs, engage real students in ambitious learning, analyze whether their students are learning, and adjust their instruction to become more effective (SCALE, 2023). edTPA is scored through Pearson, an outside evaluator not affiliated with University of Bridgeport.
The table below reflects candidates’ performance on edTPA who are on the path toward program completion; data reflects that the University’s teacher candidates perform comparably to state and national averages.
Program | *N = | % Pass | Institutional average | State average | National average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elementary | 47 | 89.8 | 49.2 | 48 | 51.2 |
Music | 12 | 85.7 | 44.2 | 42.4 | 43.5 |
ELA | 7 | Low # | 48.1 | 44.4 | 46 |
Soc St | 10 | 100 | 46.7 | 44.1 | 44.7 |
Math | 3 | Low # | 34.7 | 37.6 | 39.6 |
Science | 8 | Low # | 38.6 | 40.5 | 42.2 |
Business | 8 | Low # | 43.3 | 43.7 | 43.5 |
edTPA Score Results: 2020-21
* 2020-21 edTPA Portfolios were scored locally by Supervisors due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Candidates were not required to submit to Pearson for scoring, but a few elected to do so and their scores are presented below. Candidates also only were required to complete Tasks 1 & 3 for local scoring. 98% of all candidates who submitted for local scoring passed the edTPA.
Program | *N = | % Pass | Institutional Average | State Average | National Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Elementary | 13 | 90% | 48.4 | 50.3 | 51.5 |
Music | 2 | *low N | *low N | 43.1 | 44.3 |
ELA | 1 | *low N | *low N | 46.1 | 45.8 |
Soc. St | 4 | *low N | *low N | 44.5 | 44.6 |
Math | 0 | *low N | *low N | 39.4 | 40.0 |
Science | 5 | *low N | *low N | 43.1 | 42.1 |
Business | 2 | *low N | *low N | *low N | 44.6 |
edTPA score results: 2019-20 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Program | N = | % Pass | Institutional average | State average | National average |
Elementary | 70 | 97% | 51.4 | 48.4 | 52.2 |
Music | 11 | 100% | 48.0 | 40.5 | 45.6 |
ELA | 7 | *low N | *low N | 46.8 | 46.3 |
Soc St | 8 | *low N | *low N | 45.0 | 45.1 |
Math | 3 | *low N | *low N | 40.5 | 40.7 |
Science | 8 | *low N | *low N | 42.6 | 42.4 |
Business | 7 | *low N | *low N | *low N | 43.8 |
Data about the number of completers hired in education positions for which they have prepared is noted on the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) Data Dashboard.
University of Bridgeport Completer Data - CT Data Dashboard
University of Bridgeport survey
While CSDE conducted updates to the CT Data Dashboard, the University of Bridgeport School of Education conducted a spring 2023 survey of the spring 2022 resident student teachers (N=36) to gather more recent data about their graduates’ employment results. Of the responses (N=19), all (100%) gained employment within one year in public schools in positions for which they had prepared. Of these, 17 graduates (90%) gained employment in positions for which they had prepared as teachers, and 2 graduates (10%) gained employment as paraprofessionals in schools.
What is CAEP?
The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) accredits University of Bridgeport's School of Education. CAEP promotes excellence in educator preparation through quality assurance and continuous improvement.
CAEP is the only recognized national accreditor for educator preparation.
-
Vision: Excellence in educator preparation accreditation.
-
Mission: CAEP advances excellent educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation that assures quality and supports continuous improvement to strengthen P-12 student learning.
- Accreditation is nongovernmental activity based on peer review that serves dual functions of assuring quality and promoting improvement.
Your future starts today!
- Apply online!
- Financial aid is available, and we accept applications on a rolling basis
- We have comprehensive support services that will get you through college and into a great career