Unit: Curriculum Studies
Program: Early Childhood Education (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Oct 08, 2014 - 5:53:59 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

MEd Early Childhood Education Program SLOs

The MEd in ECE program includes a unique set of program assessments designed to measure the student competency in meeting Five Core Program Standards. These assessments are based on the unit’s Conceptual Framework. They include measures of each candidate’s knowledge about child development and the field of early childhood education, ability to contribute to leadership in the profession as an effective early childhood educator, and disposition as a caring and ethical professional. These three foci form the conceptual framework of the College of Education.

The conceptual framework of the COE provides broad direction and focus for the program design: the MEd in ECE provides a narrower lens through which to interpret and manifest the conceptual framework. The two are directly linked through the mission, goals and objectives of the MEd in ECE program. They are in turn are linked to Program Standards, Student Learning Outcomes, and Key Assessments.

The mission of the MEd in ECE is to develop depth of knowledge, collaboration skills, and the disposition to engage in leadership activities and advocacy in the field of early childhood education. Students develop the capacity to work collaboratively to design and implement high quality, inclusive programs for young children and their families.

The goal of the MEd in ECE program is to provide students with a conceptual framework, skills, and knowledge that will enhance their effectiveness as early childhood educators. It is designed to develop master level competence related to five Core Program Standards and two additional candidate selected Program Standards. Student learning outcomes are embedded in each of the required courses and the Plan B project - a Standards-Based Portfolio.

The Five Core Program Standards are embedded in mandatory coursework. SLOs are articulated below by standard:

Standard ONE: Child Development

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the developmental needs of young children from the prenatal period to eight years of age. As professionals who care about children achieving their maximum potential, they use that knowledge to effectively create programs that support children’s optimal development and to effectively develop translational strategies for families in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner.

SLOS for Standard 1

1.1  Students can explain research based knowledge of: 1) the unique individual nature of early childhood development and the role of maturation, protection, and experience in the development of domains, 2) the interactions between maturation and experience, 3) inter-relationships among the domains and contexts of development

1.2  Students can apply knowledge of child development by contributing to improving the quality of programs so that they better support each child's growth and learning.

Standard TWO: The Field of Early Childhood Education and Care

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about current issues and trends in early childhood care and education. As professionals who care about the larger needs of the community, they use that knowledge to effectively provide ethical and culturally sensitive leadership and advocacy with regard to policy decision-making, government agencies, and their own programs.

SLOS for Standard 2

2.1  Students can access professional literature on current issues or trends in ECEC, analyze the quality of information, and communicate key information to others.

2.2  Students can analyze present policy, practices and programs and actively promote policies that improve the quality of programs for children by meaningfully participating in advocacy or leadership activities that reflect research based knowledge of effective ECEC programs and practices.

Standard THREE: Early Childhood Special Education

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about children and families with special needs. As professionals who care about equity for all children and families, they effectively use their knowledge to develop inclusive educational programs to meet individual and group needs in an ethical, caring, and culturally inclusive manner.

SLOS for Standard

3.1  Students can review the literature on: 1) evolving trends in special education, 2) recommended practices regarding the needs of families with infants and young children with disabilities, 3) characteristics of infants and young children with disabilities, 4) legislative mandates for young children with special needs, 5) culturally inclusive assessment processes and procedures, 6) effective implementation of trends in the design and implementation of intervention and instruction in inclusive settings.

3.2  Students can describe legislation that affects young children with special needs/disabilities and the services and programs in Hawai'i that result from federal legislation.

3.3  Students can develop and implement an appropriate module for a 3 hour workshop that focuses on one or more topics related to inclusion of children with special needs OR a curriculum modification for children with special needs in their care based on their knowledge of young children with special needs and research based practices that support their development and learning.

3.4 Students can demonstrate the disposition to reflect on the effectiveness of present programs for infants and young children with disabilities and contribute to the development of culturally sensitive, inclusive settings that meet the needs of each child with a disability and his or her family.

Standard FOUR: Professionalism

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about what it means to be a professional in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about the field, they work effectively in collaboration with families and other professionals to provide services in an ethical, caring and culturally sensitive manner. Candidates identify and conduct themselves as members of the early childhood profession. They know and use ethical guidelines and other professional standards related to early childhood practice.

SLOS for Standard 4

4.1  Students can describe the ethical and professional responsibilities of early childhood educators and the role of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and other ethical codes in guiding professional practice.

4.2  Students can effectively analyze an ethical dilemma and engage in a methodical process to resolve it using the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct to guide decision making.

4.3  Students can reflect on and demonstrate professional dispositions in their interactions with children, families, colleagues, and the general public and intentional growth in the breadth and scope of leadership within the professional community through their involvement in professional activities within and outside of the workplace.

Standard FIVE: Research

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the role of research in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about using research-based strategies and methods, they effectively reflect on their current practice and initiate their own action-research projects. They critically analyze, and apply current educational research to their own settings.

SLOS for Standard 5

5.1    Students can state: 1)  the characteristics of qualitative research design and paradigms, 2) strategies and techniques for qualitative inquiry, 3) ethical and social implications of various desicions, research strategies and report by qualitative and other researchers, and, 4) the strengths and weaknesses of experimental and qualitative research approaches.

5.2 Students can critically review and synthesize research and evaluation literature.

5.3  Students can design, implement, and report on an original qualitative action research that is consistent with the evaluation protocols suitable for inquiry in their area of specialization and practice

 

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med-ece
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med-cs-ece
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: NCATE Advanced Programs Report available on COE Wiki
Other: Program Standards Handout, Plan B Portfolio Literature

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2014:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

Yes
No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

During this period, we focused on SLOs, course content and assessments that applied to courses and program activities that were took place during this time. SLOs for Standard 3, occurred across reporting periods and is not reported here because it was previously reported in 2013.

Assessment Questions:

1. How well do the content and assessments developed for EDCS 618 enable students to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOs for Standard 4?

4.1  Students can describe the ethical and professional responsibilities of early childhood educators and the role of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and other ethical codes in guiding professional practice.

4.2  Students can effectively analyze an ethical dilemma and engage in a methodical process to resolve it using the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct to guide decision making.

4.3  Students can reflect on and demonstrate professional dispositions in their interactions with children, families, colleagues, and the general public and intentional growth in the breadth and scope of leadership within the professional community through their involvement in professional activities within and outside of the workplace. 

 

2. How well do the content and assessments developed for EDCS 632 enable students to demonstrate proficienty in the SLOs for Standard 5?

5.1    Students can state: 1)  the characteristics of qualitative research design and paradigms, 2) strategies and techniques for qualitative inquiry, 3) ethical and social implications of various desicions, research strategies and report by qualitative and other researchers, and, 4) the strengths and weaknesses of experimental and qualitative research approaches.

5.2 Students can critically review and synthesize research and evaluation literature.

5.3  Students can design, implement, and report on an original qualitative action research that is consistent with the evaluation protocols suitable for inquiry in his/her area of specialization and practice.

 

3. Has the program improved supports to facilitate student development of a Plan B - Portfolio that demonstrates competencies relative to all program SLOS? 

 

Additional Information, Question 1:

A key assessment, Analysis of an Ethical Dillemma, embedded in EDCS 618 was used to assess proficiency in SLOs 4.1 and 4.2 and less directly SLO 4.3. The assessment required candidates to demonstrate their understanding of professional ethics and how the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct could be used to help resolve ethical dilemmas. Students identified and worked through a current or past situation or dilemma that involved ethical responsibilities to conflicting constituencies. They described the dilemma, responsibilities and possible resolutions or ethical finesse that might be employed. Following this, the students applied the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct by identifying relevant ideals and principles and prioritizing conflicting values. They arrived at a justifiable resolution to their dilmma and defended this. Following this, students completed a final reflection on their process and reflected on how they might apply what was learned to future situations.  A checklist/narrative comments evaluated student proficiency. The assessments were scored by applying a rubric and scores were entered into the college Student Information System (SIS). 

 

Additional Information, Question 2:

A key assessment, Qualitative Research Project/Paper, was embedded in EDCS 632 in Fall 2013 of the program. This assessment addressed SLOs 5.1 and 5.3. Student proficiency was articulated in a checklist/rubric that ascertained candidates’ ability to articulate the role of research in their practice and which measured their ability to design and conduct a research project and engage in academic writing. For this assignment students designed, conducted, and wrote up a qualitative action research project that demonstrated an understanding of action research, qualitative research design, reflective practice, qualitative methods and analysis. The paper was approximately 15 pages in length and based on a real-life problem in the studentʻs own setting or experience. It included an introduction, research question(s), methodology, results (data collection and analysis), and discussion/lessons learned.  The assessments were scored by applying a rubric and scores were entered into the college Student Information System (SIS). 

 

Additional Information, Question 3:

The Plan B capstone received the most comments as an area for concern in past MEd ECE program completer surveys. Steps were initiated beginning in 2012 to improve the scaffolding of the Plan B process for current students. Students submitted work samples of their Plan B portfolio in progress in Spring 2014 and completed a survey in Summer 2014 which included questions to ascertain the effectivenesss of newly created supports for the Plan B portfolio process. Plan B work samples in progress were also reviewed as formative assessment data to gauge student progress. Summative data will be available when the current cohort completes the program in Fall 2014.

 

7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

During the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, data was gathered and analyzed to answer each of the three assessment questions. Data for questions 1 and 2 was triangulated across student work samples, instructor reported evaluations, post-course meetings between instructors and the program director, and, Third Summer Student Surveys, and NCATE accreditation data scores. 

Data for question 3 was gathered through a Third Summer Study Survey administered by the Program Director to assess student perception of program effectiveness at the close of the final summer of the program. Student Plan B work samples in progress (formative data) that was submitted into the Laulima Course Management system for the program was also reviewed to gauge student progress. 

 

 

 

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

A total of 20 people contributed direct and in-direct assessment data.  Some of the instructor and program administrator roles overlapped. The participants included faculty teaching the coursework, past and present program administrators, and students. Because of the small size of the program, a sampling technique was not used. Instead evidence was requested from all the stakeholders in the program (instructors, administrators and students). 

3 instructors contributed. They taught the mandatory courses offered for the program during this time period, EDCS 632 (1), EDCS 618 (2), and EDCS 695 (1). They collected student samples for key assessments and evaluated these in light of evaluations created for the course and program accreditation rubrics. They also participated in post-course interviews and offered suggestions for program improvement. 

5 administrators were involved, the current and past program directors and faculty steering committee members from partner departments. The past director summarized assessment scores for accreditation data and interpreted results for all key assessments in our most recent accreditation report. The current program director coordinated evaluation of current program activities in consultation with the past director. She conducted post-course interviews with current instructors, collected student work samples and syllabi for each course, and created and administered a Third Summer Student Survey. This assessment results were analyzed by the faculty steering committee.

15 Students participated in the review by completing course evaluations and a Third Summer Student Survey at the end of Summer 2014 of the program.  All students were emailed a link requesting their participation in the survey to assist with on-going program improvement. 15 of the 17 continuing students participated in the Summer 2014 survey.

 

 

9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other: Program Director

10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
Other:

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

During the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014, data was gathered to address each of the following three assessment questions. Data for questions 1-2 was triangulated across student work samples, instructor evaluation scores, comments from the previous Program Director on the most recent program accreditation report, post-course conferences between new instructors and program director, and a Third Summer Student Survey.

Data for question 3 was gathered in a Third Summer Student Survey.

Assessment Questions:

1. How well do the content and assessements developed for EDCS 618 enable student to demonstrate proficiency in SLOs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3?

17 students were enrolled in EDCS 618 in Summer 2014, the third and final summer of instruction for the current cohort. All 17 demonstrated proficiency in the key assessment that addressed SLOS 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma. The EDCS 618 co-instructors evaluated the assessments and the program director entered rubriced scores for the collegewide data collection system (SIS). Student work samples were archived for external review as part of on-going accreditation procedures.

Course instructors used a combination of checklist/narrative comments to evaluate each studentʻs key assessment. This provided students with quantitative and qualitative feedback on their effectiveness in completing different elements of the assessment. While the classroom level evaluation tool differentiated between students that demonstrated essential knowledge and skills and those that demonstrated exemplary proficiency, the criteria in the rubrics for accreditation data collection did not differentiate levels of performance. It just recorded whether the students met or did not meet the assignment criteria. The program is in the process of revising the more general accreditation rubrics (that currently only allow for a met/not met score) so that they differentiate three levels of performance when the course is offered again in 2017. 

15 of the continuing 17 students also completed a Third Summer Program Survey to evaluate their perception of  the effectiveness of different components of the program. One item asked students to assess the effectiveness of their coursework (EDCS 618) in enabling them to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOS for Standard 4. Students rated program effectiveness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The results were as follows:

Score of 4, n = 6 (40%)

Score of 5, n = 9 (60%)

The ratings suggest that all students perceived the coursework as effective (40%) or very effective (60%) in contributing to their ability to demonstrate competency in SLOS 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. 

A second item evaluated student perception of how much the course EDCS 618 in which key assessments for SLOS 4.1 and 4.2 are embedded, contributed to their development as a knowledgeable and skilled leader in early education and care.

Score of 3, n = 2  (13%)

Score of 4, n = 4  (27%)

Score of 5, n = 9  (60%)

The ratings suggest that all students perceived the course content and key assessments as neutral (13%), and the majority perceived it as effective (27%) or very effective (60%) in addressing the SLOs embedded in the course.

SLO 4.3, which focuses on on-going reflection and professional growth, is revisited throughout the program and was reinforced in the  summer courses. Formative assessment data has been collected in the form of Plan B exemplars and drafts of narrative statements for this standard. Summative assessment is scheduled to be collected in Fall 2014 for this cohort.

 

2. How well do the content and assessments developed for EDCS 632 enable students to demonstrate proficienty in  SLOs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3?

18 students were enrolled in EDCS 632 in Fall 2013. 16 demonstrated proficiency in the key assessment for the course, a Qualitative Research Project/Paper, which addresses SLOS 5.1 and 5.3 for Standard 5. There were 2 students who unable to complete the assignment due to extenuating personal situations. They received an “I” for courses. One completed the assessment in Spring 2014 and another was unable to complete the assignment. Three student work samples were archived for external review as part of on-going accreditation data collection procedures. 

It was discovered after the course was completed that a course assessment which directly addressed SLO 5.2 had been dropped from the syllabus as the course transitioned from a retiring faculty member to a new instructor. The ability of the course to address SLO 5.2 without this assignment was evaluated in post-course conferencing. When the course is offered again in Fall 2016, the eliminated assignment will be reinstated into the syllabus or an alternative assignment that directly assesses SLO 5.2 will be created so that students can more directly develop proficiency in this SLO.

Additionally, the program is in the process of revising general rubrics for accreditation (that currently only allow for a met/not met score) to rubrics that differentiate three levels of performance when the course is offered again in Fall 2016. Revised rubrics for will differentiate between students that demonstrated essential competency and those that demonstrate exemplary proficiency in SLOS 5.1 and 5.3.

15 of the continuing 17 students also completed a Third Summer Program Survey to evaluate their perception of  the effectiveness of different components of the program. One item asked students to assess the effectiveness of their coursework (EDCS 632) in enabling them to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOS for Standard 5. Students rated program effectiveness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The results were as follows:

Score of 3, n = 1   (7%)

Score of 4, n = 6   (40%)

Score of 5, n = 8   (53%)

The ratings suggest that overall, students perceived the coursework was effective or very effective in contributing to their ability to demonstrate competency in SLOS 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. 

 

A second item evaluated student perception of how much the course EDCS 632 in which key assessments for SLOS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 are embedded, contributed to their development as a knowledgeable and skilled leader in early education and care.

Score of 2, n = 1  (7%)

Score of 3, n = 1  (7%)

Score of 4, n =5  (33%)

Score of 5, n = 8  (53%)

The ratings suggest that while students perceptions were mixed on the effectiveness of the course content and key assessments, a majority of the students found it effective (33%) or very effective (53%) in addressing the SLOs embedded in the course.

 

3. Has the program improved supports to facilitate student development of a Plan B - Portfolio that demonstrates competencies relative to all program SLOS? 

Several items on a Third Summer Student Survey examine supports that students accessed the most or found most helpful in enabling them to fulfill their Plan B capstone requirements.  Over 85% of the students reported the following resources as Used often/Very helpful or Used all time time/Essential to my success.

  • One-to-one conferencing with program advisor (100%)
  • E-mail Reminders (100%)
  • Feedback on draft documents (93%)
  • Monthly seminars (86%)
  • Use of the Laulima Program Management System to Digitize Plan B Process and Resources (87%)

Other supports were less univerally utilized by all students. Scoring on these supports was dispersed across the continuum of responses 0=did not use/Not helpful to 5=Used all the time/Essential to my success). However, each support was critical to the success of some students. It appears that, having diverse supports available  enables the program to provide a range of resources for the diverse students served. Some of the initiatives deemed essential to some students were used in varying degree by others included:

  • Mentoring by past cohort alumni
  • Internships  
  • Past Samples of Student Work
  • Cohort "study buddies"
  • Coordinated opportunities for participation in professional development and leadership (e.g. presentations at professional conferences)

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

The MEd ECE Program has reestablished a faculty steering committee across the 3 departments of the interdisciplinary degree. This group has been meeting regularly since 2013. The program is continuously evaluating direct and indirect assessment data to inform program revisions in preparation for Cohort 5, which begins in Summer 2015 and to assist Cohort 4 students who are completing the final semester of their program of study.

The program continues to build on a number of initatives which commenced in the 2012-2013 academic year.

1. Pre-Advising conferences are conducted with interested students in multiple formats - Skype, phone, or in person conferences on or off-campus. Students whose coursework indicates deficiencies in foundational knowledge are assisted in identifying comparable foundational courses throughout the UH system which can satisfy pre-requisites. 

2. Program information is more clearly articulated for prospective and current students, in multiple formats. This information is communicated on the program webpage, brochures and program literature, and a Laulima   Management System for the program. It will also be part of a Program Handbook for Cohort V when they begin in Summer 2015.

3, Hybrid, on-line instruction is now fully integrated into the program format  so that course requirements can be extended beyond the face-to-face condensed summer intensives. In the first summer, coursework was all compressed into 3 week summer intensives with final assessments due on the last day of face-to-face sessions. This modification has been well received by the current students.

4. Co-teaching partnerships between program faculty and community experts or visiting faculty enrich the perspectives of students and facilitate the translation from theory and practice across different settings. This past summer, 2 of the 3 courses involved co-teaching relationships with national and local topic experts. We hope to continue this tradition and to recruit program faculty who are willing to engage in co-teaching relationships.

5. In-direct data collection in the form of annual student surveys, one-on-one conferencing notes, and post-course meetings with program faculty indirectly assess program and strengths and weaknesses from multiple perspectives. 

6. We continue to assess the effectiveness of Plan B supports as this cohort of students completes their final semester. We will elicit information from students and Plan B readers to evaluate the effectiveness of the supports created and asssess areas for continued improvement.

7.We are revisiting our program accreditation rubrics for all key assessments and will revise these to differentiate the student scores on key assessments into three categories: those that do not meet proficiencies, those that demonstrate essential competencies and those that are desmonstrate an exemplary level of proficiency (above and beyond what is expected).

8. The faculty steering committee will revisit the mapping of SLOs, syllabi and key assessments and determine a review process to orient new instructors that ensures course content and key assessments are identified for all SLOs.

 

These additional specific initiatives are in process:

1. The faculty steering committee is revisiting the program standards, SLOs and key assessments to determine program modifications prior to the start of Cohort V in Summer 2015.

2. We are in the process of identifying stakeholders to form an advisory committee that can inform program revisions before we begin Cohort V. This advisory group will convene in Spring 2015 and will be asked to provide perspective on fieldwide leadership needs and revisions in order to inform revisions to the program standards, SLOs, course content, key learning experiences and assessments for the program.

3. In line with this, The faculty steering committee will be working with faculty across our home deparments, many of whom are new to the program, to reexamine how content integrates across the coursework and between coursework and the workplace. We will revise the overall program design to enhance how we support students in embodying the SLOs across a continuum of development as they progress through the program. While there are key assessments enbedded in individual courses, the faculty steering committee is in the process of looking at the content mapping across seminar and specific courses so that key opportunities can be interwoven between earlier and later courses and \will provide the foundation for later experiences where students can demonstrate mastery of content and proficiency in applying this in the workplace. This will be integrated into the program design and materials before we begin Cohort V in Summer 2015.

4. In light of the decreased neighbor island representation in the current cohort, recruitment and sustainability efforts are underway such as on-line pre-advising, contact with potential students via neighbor island leaders and alumni. These aim to increase the capacity of the program to attract and support students statewide.

13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

One of the important trends in enrollment is the changing demographic of our students. The curent cohort has dropped in enrollment by 33%.  Also, statewide representation in the enrollment has dwindled from 35% (n=10) neighbor island students in the first cohort to 4% (n=1) neighbor island students in the current cohort. Steps are being taken to determine the barriers and supports that impact neighbor island students and what is needed to restore enrollment from this group. At the same time, there has been a steady increase in US mainland and international students from 4% (n=1) in the first cohort to 22% (n=4) in the current cohort. The program has been incorporating distance technology to better support this growing population during the period when they are off island. 

The transition to a graduate level program can be challenging for the non-traditional student population that is typical of this field of study. The program embodies a social justice agenda and aims to be inclusive and to foster leadership in student/practitioner groups that have not historically held positions of power. Typically, practitioners in the field of early childhood are minority women who are employed in positions with low socio-economic status. Because of the commitment to developing leaders within communities that will improve the stature of the field and programs for children and familes. There are some students who will find the coursework challenging. The faculty steering committee is in the process of reviewing the literature on effective strategies for supporting non-traditional students and will use this to inform program design as we prepare for Cohort V. 

Finally, one of the primary obstacles to enrollment and degree attainment is the rising tuition. In fact, the first question potential applicants ask is if the program has resources that can help them to enroll. For this reason, the program has made it a point to identify potential scholarships, financial aid, and tuition assistance and actively assists students in obtaining financial support. By Summer 2014, nearly all of our students successfully accessed some form of tuition assistance. Because of the great need, we continue to seek ways to increase the support available to students. The cost of a graduate degree is starting to be beyond the reach of many of our local practitioners. This is a concern at a critical time when there is a need for statewide leadership in early childhood education.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.