• EHHP Home Page
• Faculty and Staff Directory
• Departments

Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

For a summary of data sources in the unit assessment system related to candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions see Data Sources Related to Candidate Proficiencies.

back to top

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Advanced)

As illustrated in our conceptual framework, we consider candidates’ content knowledge critical. We believe that P-12 students are unlikely to learn what teachers do not know. A focus on content knowledge is found in the conceptual framework (e.g., in Elements of Teacher Competency 2: Knowing what and how to teach and assess and how to create an environment in which learning occurs, and in Teaching and Learning Standard II: Demonstrate understanding and application of the critical attributes of pedagogy of the major content area).

Initial program candidates perform exceptionally well on tests of content knowledge used in South Carolina for certification. Undergraduate candidates demonstrate reading, writing and math skills by passing all sections of the Praxis I prior to admission to the teacher education program. A small number of candidates are admitted provisionally if they have passed all but one Praxis I test as long as all other admission criteria are met. As Table 1.1 illustrates, College of Charleston candidates consistently score above state and national average on the Praxis I tests of reading, writing and mathematics.

Table 1.1
Two Year Comparison of College of Charleston
Praxis I Scores to State and National Average*

* Based on data provided by Educational Testing Service

All initial candidates (undergraduate and M.A.T.) must take the Praxis II exam prior to certification, but it is not a requirement for graduation. Praxis II pass rates are consistently high as reported in Table 1.2. Praxis II pass rates are also reported in the College of Charleston Title II Report.

Table 1.12
Aggregate and Summary Pass Rates Reported in Title II Report

* Data for 2002-2003 are not available yet.

Table 1.3 demonstrates that candidates perform at or above state and national average on Praxis II.

Table 1.3
Candidate Performance on Praxis II Exams in Relation to State and National Averages: 2001-2003*

* Based on data provided by Educational Testing Service. Insufficient numbers of secondary and physical education candidates took the Praxis II exams to gather two year comparative data. Only the core test taken by special education candidates is included. Data on additional programs are available in the evidence room

Candidates take the Principles of Learning and Teaching exam (Praxis III) during clinical practice or in their first year of teaching. Many of the questions on these exams focus on professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Table 1.4 illustrates that candidates perform well on this test.

Table 1.4
Candidate Performance on Praxis III in Comparison to State and National Averages: 2001-2003 *

* Based on data provided by Educational Testing Service.

In fall 2003, all programs submitted reports to their respective professional organization, and the results of the reviews are summarized in Table 1.5. As this table illustrates, all of our largest programs meet or exceed the high standards of the professional organizations. Selected reviewer comments indicate common strengths in our programs: assessment, focus on dispositions, and a coherent, well articulated conceptual framework. See Program Review Rejoinders for status of programs not yet recognized or approved.

Table 1.5
Status of Program Review Reports

See Status of Specialized Professional Association Reviews for more details on program reviews.

The School of Education collects and analyzes additional data to ensure that candidates know the subject matter that they plan to teach (see Data Sources Related to Candidate Proficiencies for more information on data used to track candidate progress). As a liberal arts and sciences institution, College of Charleston requires a broad, challenging exposure to content in all major fields of study. The College of Charleston requires that all undergraduate students fulfill requirements in English, natural sciences, mathematics, history, humanities, social sciences, and foreign languages. As illustrated in Requirements in General Education Content Areas, the College of Charleston’s general education requirements are comprehensive. Programs within the School of Education build on this base by requiring specific courses and some programs require additional content courses. Secondary programs ensure content knowledge by requiring a major in a content area and a minor in education.

M.A.T. program directors evaluate the course of study of all entering M.A.T. candidates and require undergraduate coursework where deficiencies in general knowledge occur. Once candidates seeking an M.A.T. complete the additional coursework, their knowledge of liberal arts and sciences content resembles that of College of Charleston undergraduates.

Undergraduate candidates not only enroll in demanding general education courses, but as illustrated in Table 1.7, they perform well in them.

Table 1.7
Undergraduate Candidate Mean GPA in Non-Education Courses

* PEHD numbers include non-teacher education candidates who are not held to the 2.5 minimum GPA
** Separate degrees for early childhood and middle were not available in fall 2002

M.A.T. candidates must have an overall GPA of 2.5 for their undergraduate degree and earn at least a 2.5 average in additional arts and sciences courses required for the M.A.T. Table 1.8 illustrates that candidates in all programs have clearly exceeded this minimal GPA for the last three years.

Table 1.8
M.A.T. Average Undergraduate GPA*

* Table based on data provided by the Graduate School.

All of the initial teacher education programs continuously assess candidates in their coursework, field experiences, and clinical practice to ensure that they have in-depth knowledge of the subject matter they will teach. As evidenced by the outcomes of program reviews, all initial certification programs demonstrate that their candidates meet professional, state and unit standards.

All initial candidates complete a portfolio that provides evidence of their content knowledge. To better track candidate performance within programs and to aggregate data across programs, the School of Education initiated an electronic portfolio system (see LiveText). The portfolios allow candidates to reflect on their work and how it has changed over time. They also gain a deeper understanding of how the conceptual framework (through the Elements of Teacher Competency) organizes all aspects of teaching and learning. Candidates entering the program in fall semester 2003 are the first cohort to be introduced to the electronic portfolios, although some programs have been using other types of portfolios prior to fall 2003. Portfolios are evaluated at the unit level at UAP 2 (prior to clinical practice) and UAP 3 (at completion of clinical practice) and many programs evaluate them every semester. Using the Unit Portfolio Assessment programs ensure that candidates’ portfolios meet program standards and are consistent with the conceptual framework.

Portfolios demonstrate that candidates possess content knowledge appropriate to their teaching area. Table 1.9 illustrates that candidates’ portfolios meet program standards related to content knowledge.

Table 1.9
Candidate Portfolio Evidence* Related to Content Knowledge: 2003-2004

* Portfolios are rated on a 4 point scale. 3 = exceeds standard, 2 = meets standard, 1 = below standard, 0 = unacceptable.
** The number of entries is small because the largest programs (early childhood and elementary) waited to initiate portfolios at UAP2 until the first cohort of candidates entered the revised programs (see Table 1). They will reach UAP2 at the end of fall 2004. The special education and physical education programs pilot tested using portfolios to collect and reflect upon evidence. All other programs began using portfolios in 2003-2004.

Candidates’ content knowledge growth within the professional programs is also measured by GPA in professional program courses. The aggregate GPA in professional courses for all undergraduate and M.A.T. candidates is consistently high, as illustrated in Table 1.10.

Table 1.10
Aggregate GPA in Professional Courses: 2000-2004

Candidates demonstrate their ability to identify appropriate content and to deliver content in their field experiences. Table 1.11 provides average GPA in field experience courses. The high average GPA indicates that candidates exceed expectations in field experiences.

Table 1.11
Candidate Performance in Field Experiences: 2003-2004*

* Mean GPA for all field experience courses for each program.

Content knowledge is also examined when candidates complete clinical practice. Their performance in the field is assessed using the ADEPT (Assisting, Developing and Evaluating Professional Teachers) teacher evaluation system. ADEPT is a statewide system of integrated performance-based standards, guidelines, and strategies designed to promote excellence in the teaching profession. The ADEPT Professional Dimensions (PDs) align with the School of Education Elements of Teacher Competency (see Standards Alignment Matrix). Several PDs, especially PD 6 (Providing Content for Learners), supply valuable data on candidates’ ability to provide content for learners. Table 1.12 illustrates that undergraduate and M.A.T. candidates demonstrate competency in providing content to students. Candidates receiving a score of 3 are considered competent; those receiving a 2 are considered developing competency, and those earning a score of 1 or 0 are not considered competent.

Table 1.12
Initial Candidate (Undergraduate and M.A.T.) Content Knowledge
as Assessed by ADEPT*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See ADEPT Performance Dimension Analysis

The School of Education guarantees that advanced candidates have solid content knowledge by requiring that they graduate with a 2.5 GPA or better as undergraduates. Candidates admitted to the M.Ed. programs demonstrate strong content knowledge through their undergraduate GPA. Table 1.13 illustrates that M.Ed. candidates admitted into all of the M.Ed. programs exceed the minimum GPA.

Table 1.13
M.Ed. Average Undergraduate GPA by Semester*

In addition, since almost all M.Ed. candidates are certified teachers4 they have demonstrated a competent level of content knowledge through the teacher certification process (being recommended for certification and passing relevant Praxis II exams). The goal of the advanced programs is to enhance content knowledge and move the advanced candidates toward master level. At the unit level, all advanced candidates meet similar admissions requirements5, maintain a 3.0 GPA in their professional education courses, and engage in a capstone experience.

Given that content knowledge at this level is very program specific, all performance assessments are program based. Table 1.14 illustrates how each of the advanced programs systematically assesses content knowledge during the program.

Table 1.14
Content Knowledge Demonstrated by Advanced Candidates during Program

Each advanced program also has a capstone experience that provides an opportunity to assess candidates’ ability to synthesize content knowledge gained during the program. Table 1.15 provides a brief description of each program’s capstone experience.

Table 1.15
Advanced Program Capstone Experiences

The primary feedback provided by cooperating teachers on candidate content knowledge is obtained through their ADEPT evaluations. The cooperating teacher and supervising professor jointly prepare the final ADEPT evaluation on each candidate. As demonstrated in Table 1.12, candidates receive high ratings on content knowledge as measured by ADEPT.

Employer surveys completed by school administrators provide follow-up data on candidates’ effectiveness in presenting content once they are teaching. The survey was designed to obtain information on graduate performance in relation to the three Elements of Teacher Competency (in the case of content knowledge, ETC 2: Knowing what to teach) using wording similar to that in the ADEPT PDs. (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers). When asked to rate the graduates as competent (5), developing competent (3), needs improvement (1), or never demonstrates (0), the 25 respondents indicate that they find our graduates to be competent in content knowledge (See Table 1.16).

Table 1.16
School Administrator Survey: Content Knowledge

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See Alumni/Employer Survey Analysis.

Upon completion of clinical practice, candidates evaluate their teacher preparation program (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers). Table 1.17 summarizes candidates’ feedback on the degree to which they feel confident in providing content to students. Candidates clearly feel well prepared to teach content given their responses to the two questions (using a 5 point scale from 5 = well prepared to 1 = inadequately prepared). In addition, they are asked to comment on each of the questions.

Table 1.17
Candidate Assessment of Readiness to Teach Content

Graduate surveys completed by alumni graduating between 1998 and 2002 provide follow-up data on candidates’ effectiveness in presenting content once they are teaching. The survey was designed to obtain information on graduate performance in relation to the three Elements of Teacher Competency (in the case of content knowledge, ETC 2: Knowing what to teach) using wording similar to that in the ADEPT PDs (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers). When asked to rate themselves as competent (5), developing competent (3), needs improvement (1), or never demonstrates (0), the 102 respondents indicate that they feel competent in content knowledge (See Table 1.178).

Table 1.18
Graduate Survey: Content Knowledge*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See Alumni/Employer Survey Analysis.

Advanced programs collect data on the long term impact of the program on candidates’ practice. Given the differences in program focus, programs have chosen to follow-up on candidates in different ways. Table 1.19 provides evidence that participating in the programs has moved candidates from being competent teachers toward becoming master teachers.

Table 1.19
Evidence of Enhanced Content Knowledge for Advanced Candidates from Follow-up Studies

back to top

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Pedagogical content knowledge describes the interaction between knowing the content of a subject and being able to present this content in meaningful ways so that all learners have the opportunity to learn; this, along with content knowledge, is central to the conceptual framework’s Element of Teacher Competency 2: Knowing what and how to teach and assess and how to create an environment in which learning occurs. Pedagogical content knowledge involves being able to provide multiple explanations of concepts and processes, having a wide repertoire of instructional strategies, and being able to help diverse students make connections and use their prior knowledge and skills to learn new material. The level of content knowledge described above ensures that our candidates know their subject area sufficiently to be able to provide multiple explanations. The program coursework (both initial and advanced), field experiences and clinical practice provide candidates an opportunity to develop a wide range of instructional strategies.

In initial programs, pedagogical content knowledge assessment is similar to that described under Content Knowledge (see Data Sources Related to Candidate Proficiencies). As demonstrated above, successful program reviews indicate that candidates develop pedagogical content knowledge appropriate to each program. The high average GPA for all undergraduate and M.A.T. candidates (see Undergraduate and MAT GPA) also demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge. Portfolios developed during professional coursework and clinical practice provide vivid evidence of candidate pedagogical content knowledge. Candidate Portfolio Evidence demonstrates that candidates’ portfolios meet program standards for pedagogical content knowledge. In addition, Candidate Performance in Field Experiences illustrates that candidates demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge in field experiences.

Pedagogical content knowledge is also examined at UAP 3 when candidates complete clinical practice. Their performance in the classroom is assessed using the ADEPT (Assisting, Developing and Evaluating Professional Teachers) teacher evaluation system. ADEPT is a statewide system of integrated performance-based standards, guidelines, and strategies designed to promote excellence in the teaching profession. The ADEPT Professional Dimensions (PDs) align with the School of Education Elements of Teacher Competency (see Standards Alignment Matrix). Several PDs, especially PD 5: Using Varied Instructional Strategies, provide valuable data on candidates’ ability to provide content for learners. Table 1.20 illustrates that undergraduate and M.A.T. candidates demonstrate competency in instruction and in presenting content in clear and meaningful ways. Candidates receiving a score of 3 are considered competent; those receiving a 2 are considered developing competency, and those earning a score of 1 or 0 are not considered competent and are not recommended for certification.

Table 1.20
Clinical Practice Interns’ Ability to Apply Pedagogical Content Knowledge *

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See ADEPT Performance Dimension Analysis.

As described in relation to initial programs, the reports that advanced programs submitted to professional organizations and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education are evidence that candidates in advanced programs demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge expected of teachers moving toward a master level. At an aggregate level, we ensure that we admit candidates into these programs with at least competent level pedagogical content knowledge by admitting certified teachers. In addition, candidates reflect on their strengths in this area in application letters and goal setting once admitted.

The evidence provided in Advanced Candidate Content Knowledge (Table 1.14 on p. 19) and Advanced Program Capstone Experiences (Table 1.15 on p. 20) and the fact that candidates maintain a GPA well above the required 3.0 in professional courses illustrate that they expand their pedagogical content knowledge

Initial candidates demonstrate knowledge of appropriate uses of technology in several ways throughout their programs and once they are teaching. All candidates must demonstrate basic knowledge of technology on admission to teacher education. Undergraduate candidates' technology proficiency is assessed in EDFS 201: Introduction to Education; Table 1.21 illustrates that candidates enter the undergraduate programs with strong technology skills.

Table 1.21
Undergraduate Candidate Technology Proficiency at Admission: 2002 – 2004*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See Technology Competency Analysis.

M.A.T. candidate proficiency is assessed on admission to the program through a technology competency self report (see MAT Technology Self Audit). Based on this self report, M.A.T. candidates with sufficient skills enroll directly in EDEE 687: Technology Education for Teachers; those without basic technology skills (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet, database, web browsing) are referred to undergraduate level courses or other student services to develop these skills. All undergraduate and M.A.T. candidates enroll in either EDFS 326: Technology for Teachers (undergraduate) or EDFS 687: Technology Education for Teachers (M.A.T.) to provide technology instruction specifically designed for classroom use. Candidates consistently perform well in these courses as evidenced by the data in Table 1.22. During clinical practice, candidates ability to use technology appropriately is assessed in relation to the availability of technology in the school and classroom.

Table 1.22
Candidate Performance in Educational Technology Courses: Average GPA

According to survey ratings by school administrators and graduates in which a 5 is considered competent and a 3 is considered developing competency, College of Charleston graduates excel at selecting resources and technologies which present content in a variety of strategies. Undergraduates were rated 4.5 by school administrators and 4.3 by themselves. M.A.T. graduates were rated 4.0 by school administrators and 4.5 by themselves.

In addition to expanding pedagogical content knowledge through courses and in field experiences, advanced candidates enhance their ability to use technology to present content. All of the advanced technology courses (see Graduate Catalog ) required of advanced candidates meet the ISTE standards, and other professional courses require that candidates demonstrate a high level of technology competency. Because M.Ed. candidates enter programs at such different levels of technology knowledge and application, it is difficult to aggregate their growth although all candidates gain technology knowledge and skills.

The primary feedback provided by cooperating teachers on candidate pedagogical content knowledge is obtained through their ADEPT evaluations. The cooperating teacher and supervising professor jointly prepare the final ADEPT evaluation on each candidate. As demonstrated in Table 1.20 candidates receive high ratings on pedagogical content knowledge as measured by ADEPT.

Employer surveys completed by school administrators provide follow-up data on candidates' pedagogical content knowledge. The survey was designed to obtain information on graduate performance in relation to the three Elements of Teacher Competency (in the case of pedagogical content knowledge, ETC 2: Knowing what and how to teach) using wording similar to that in the ADEPT PDs (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers). When asked to rate the graduates as competent (5), developing competent (3), needs improvement (1), or never demonstrates (0), the 25 respondents indicate that they find our graduates to be competent in pedagogical content knowledge (See Table 1.23).

Table 1.23
School Administrator Survey: Pedagogical Content Knowledge*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See Alumni/Employer Survey Analysis

Upon completion of clinical practice, candidates evaluate their teacher preparation program (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers ) . Table 1.24 summarizes candidates' feedback on the degree to which they feel confident in their pedagogical content knowledge. Candidates clearly feel well prepared in this area given their responses to the two questions (using a 5 point scale from 5 = well prepared to 1 = inadequately prepared) related to pedagogical content knowledge .

Table 1.24
Candidate Confidence in Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Graduate surveys completed by alumni graduating between 1998 and 2002 provide follow-up data on candidates assessments of their pedagogical content once they are teaching. The survey was designed to obtain information on graduate performance in relation to the three Elements of Teacher Competency (in the case of pedagogical content knowledge, ETC 2: Knowing what and how to teach) using wording similar to that in the ADEPT PDs (see Feedback from Candidates, Graduates, and Employers). When asked to rate themselves as competent (5), developing competent (3), needs improvement (1), or never demonstrates (0), the 102 respondents indicate that they feel competent in pedagogical content knowledge (See Table 1.25).

Table 1.25
Graduate Survey: Pedagogical Content Knowledge*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. (See Alumni/Employer Survey Analysis)

Advanced Candidate Follow-up (Table 1.19 on page 22) provides evidence of candidate and graduate assessments of their gains in pedagogical content knowledge.

back to top

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Within the School of Education conceptual framework, considerable emphasis is placed on professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. As illustrated in the Standards Alignment Matrix, the conceptual framework s Elements of Teacher Competency serve as an umbrella for unit (shaped by INTASC standards), state, and professional standards. All three elements of teacher competency address professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. We believe that candidates must understand and value learners. This translates into knowing how students learn and how their family and community context influences their learning. We also believe that as part of knowing what and how to teach is the ability to identify and build on students prior knowledge to make learning meaningful and relevant for all students. This also involves establishing a classroom environment that encourages learning. Finally, our commitment to ensuring that candidates understand themselves as professionals encompasses all aspects of professional behavior, including understanding the following: the foundations of education; professional ethics, laws, and policies; the use of research in teaching; reflective practice; and having the ability to interact well with colleagues, parents, and the community.

As evidenced in Status of Specialized Professional Association Reviews (Table 1.5 on p. 15) initial certification programs demonstrate that their candidates meet professional, state, and unit standards in relation to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills (see Data Sources Related to Candidate Proficiencies for a summary of supporting data). For undergraduate candidates, the development of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills begins prior to admission to the teacher education program. Their knowledge and skills are assessed through their reflective essay on the Elements of Teacher Competency and by their grade in EDFS 201: Introduction to Education. Candidates perform well in this course as evidenced by an average GPA over all sections since fall 2002 of 3.67 (N=663). This course introduces candidates to the foundations of education, considerations of school, family, and community contexts, and professional ethics, laws, and policies. The reflective essay provides baseline data on candidates knowledge of students; of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and classroom organization; and of what it means for them to become a professional. As described above, all of these areas, especially professionalism, involve professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. M.A.T. candidates write an application letter that is reviewed by program directors in relation to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, and they are introduced to the foundations of education, laws and policies, and family and community issues in their foundations courses (EDFS 652: Foundations of Education or EDEE 510: Developmental Appropriateness in Early Childhood Education).

In addition, Undergraduate and MAT GPA (Table 1.10 on p. 18) illustrate that all initial candidates perform well on course assessments that include assessing professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. All of the initial teacher education programs continuously assess candidates to ensure that they have professional and pedagogical content knowledge and skills needed to be competent teachers. Examples of candidate work related to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are included in their portfolios. In fall 2003, the School of Education initiated an electronic portfolio system (see LiveText) to track candidate progress within programs and to aggregate data across programs. Candidates entering the program that semester are the first to be introduced to this system, although some programs have been using other types of portfolios prior to the decision to use electronic portfolios. Portfolios are evaluated at UAP 2 (prior to clinical practice) and UAP 3 (at completion of clinical practice) and most programs evaluate them every semester. Using the Unit Portfolio Assessment programs ensure that candidates portfolios not only meet program standards but are consistent with the conceptual framework. In addition, the template (see LiveText template) used to build a portfolio mirrors the conceptual framework s Elements of Teacher Competency. Table 1.26 illustrates that candidates portfolios meet program standards as aligned with the conceptual framework at UAP 2 (completion of coursework) and UAP 3 (completion of clinical practice).

Table 1.26
Assessment of Candidate Portfolios: 2003-2004

* Portfolios are rated on a 4 point scale. 3 = exceeds standard, 2 = meets standard, 1 = below standard, 0 = unacceptable.
** The number of entries at UAP2 is small because the largest programs (early childhood and elementary) waited to initiate portfolios at UAP2 until the first cohort of candidates entered the revised programs (see Table 1). The special education and physical education programs pilot tested using portfolios to collect and reflect upon evidence. All other programs began using portfolios in 2003-2004.

Candidate Performance in Field Experiences (Table 1.11 on p. 17) illustrates that candidates perform well in field experiences in which they are expected to reflect upon and/or demonstrate pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills. For example, in EDEE 327: Learner Development and the Context of Learning, all early childhood, elementary, and middle grades candidates learn to observe and reflect upon influences on learner development, the importance of building on prior knowledge when teaching, and how teacher professionalism is manifested in the classrooms they observe.

Clinical practice interns demonstrate a competent level of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills during clinical practice. Using the South Carolina teacher assessment system, ADEPT, clinical practice interns demonstrate that they: reflect on their practice and make adjustments; that they incorporate knowledge of students as they plan for and deliver instruction; that they consider family and community contexts as they link to prior knowledge and make ideas applicable to real world problems. Table 1.27 summarizes clinical practice interns performance in relation to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Candidates receiving a score of 3 are considered competent; those receiving a 2 are considered developing competency, and those earning a score of 1 or 0 are not considered competent.

Table 1.27
Clinical Practice Interns' Performance: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills*

* Data derived from EDA-SYS system. See ADEPT Performance Dimension Analysis.

Status of Specialized Professional Association Reviews (Table 1.5 on p. 15) provides evidence that candidates in advanced programs demonstrate professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills expected of teachers moving toward a master level. The M.Ed. programs are aligned with both institutional and professional standards, as indicated in the program reports. Program revisions underway will more closely link some of the M.Ed. programs (especially the M.Ed. in elementary education and in early childhood education) to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. At an aggregate level, we ensure that we admit candidates into these programs with at least competent level professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. We do so by admitting certified teachers, reviewing application letters, and through goal setting once candidates are admitted.

The evidence provided in Advanced Candidate Content Knowledge (Table 1.14 on p. 19) and Advanced Program Capstone Experiences (Table 1.15 on p. 20) and the fact that candidates maintain a GPA well above 3.0 in professional courses is evidence that they develop professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills in relation to knowing content and pedagogy. We believe that professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills also extends to working with families, establishing a professional environment in the school and classroom, and being reflective practitioners. Table 1.28 illustrates how candidates demonstrate knowledge and skills in relation to these more specific areas.

Table 1.28
Examples of Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills in Advanced Programs