• Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous improvement of candidate performance and program quality.
• Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as articulated in this standard.

For several years, the university was focused on recruiting and hiring quality leaders to fill the positions of Provost and three School Deans. Ongoing examination and refinement of the components of the Assessment System was intermittent during this time. However, progress was still made toward continuous improvement. Please review the Programmatic Changes Made in Response to Data Analysis across all specialty association reports in AIMS (2.4.g.1).

1. Initial licensure programs consistently analyzed data and used those data to make programmatic and instructional changes. Several other programs maintained their own data in wikis and Excel spreadsheets. All programs have now been merged into our common assessment system, Tk20. All key assessment rubrics are undergoing a review for accuracy, fairness, and validity. Many key assessments are being revised from a scoring guide or product outline to a standards or competency-based rubric focused on the development of candidate competencies. To this end, various programs have met to identify the basic rubric design for key assessments. Standards have been aligned and an overall Matrix of Standards has been developed to assist faculty in developing their matrices for course syllabi.
2. Beginning in Fall 2012, regular program and unit reviews have been conducted within and across all programs with unit faculty. Program faculty demonstrated a range of skills in data analysis and they have been guided in the process.
3. All program learner objectives are aligned with the elements of NCATE/CAEP Standards (2.4.a.3). The process includes the creation of performance data reports each semester by the NCATE Coordinator and the Coordinator of the Assessment System. These reports are used to make appropriate decisions about candidate performance, program effectiveness, and Unit operations. Unit and program assessments are integrated into a single assessment system through the use of common data collection instruments that guide program specialty reviews and Unit reviews.
4. In the elementary education program, effective with the 2012 Freshman class, candidates entering in the Freshman year are registered as pre-majors. At the end of the Freshmanyear, the Associate Dean and Department Chair review the GPA of each pre-major. Those candidates maintaining a 3.0 GPA may continue in the teacher preparation program. Those not maintaining the GPA are advised out of the program.
5. In response to guidance from the State of Connecticut, the GPA requirement for all licensure program candidates was raised to a 3.0 in Fall 2012. Program entry requirements for the EdD in Instructional Leadership werechanged from a cumulative GPA of 3.0 (B) and a required entry test of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) or the Miller’s Analogies Test (MAT) to a minimum graduate GPA of 3.67 (A-) and a waiver for the GRE/MAT in the Spring 2013. This decision was based on the fact that the average GPA for five cohorts is 3.8 with a range of 3.5 to 4.0 and the average percentile rank for the MAT across 5 cohorts is 81 with a range of 50 to 99. Since the average MAT and GPA values are already high for applicants, eliminating the MAT for those with already high GPAs is a financial saving to the applicant. Applicants with GPAs between 3.33-3.66 need to complete the MAT and obtain a score of at least the 50th percentile rank.
6. In a review of the Assessment system, it became evident that transition points were not clear across programs in the unit nor were they aligned. The NCATE Steering Committee created a graphic identifying the transition points and illustrating the alignment across the unit. Transition points were discussed with the faculty at unit meetings when the Assessment Handbook was presented.

• Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous improvement as articulated in this standard. 

1. Unit programs will be expected to submit an annual report as part of the comprehensive assessment system demonstrating their successes in the previous year, progress toward meeting identified learning objectives of their programs and courses, and reporting changes based on data.
2. The Unit meets at the end of each semester to review data. At the end of the Spring semester, the meeting also includes an overview of Unit data. This has resulted in a better understanding of program expectations across the Unit. Faculty often have suggestions for improvements across the Unit.
3. Candidate learning outcomes reflect NCATE/CAEP’s Standard 1 expectations  (2.4.a.3)  Organized by learning outcomes, each program reports how effectiveness is measured and the methodology employed to measure results. Data are then used to develop instructional and programmatic change recommendations. The Program Coordinator then meets with the Department Chair and NCATE Coordinator to determine how to implement the recommended changes.
4. An Assessment and Accreditation Committee was formed in Spring 2013 to oversee data collection, management, and analysis across the unit. This body will ensure that the procedures established during the past two years are implemented systematically across all initial and advanced programs.
5. The Tk20 assessment matrix aligns each key assessment rubric with the course, responsibility for posting, SPA alignment, and Standard element rubric alignment.
6. Rubrics were revised or created so that each rubric is standards- or competency-based, with each line (criterion) within the rubric aligned with one standard element.
7. As data rounds accumulate, we will conduct our own tests of validity and reliability.