» Master of Arts in Teaching and Multiple/Single Subject Credential

Description of the Program 

The Master of Arts in Teaching Elementary Education program allows candidates to obtain both a Multiple Subject (MS) Credential, with an option for a bilingual Spanish/English emphasis, and a master’s degree through an integrated program of coursework, fieldwork, and student research. This program is targeted to individuals who wish to begin their teaching careers with both a teaching credential and a master’s degree.

Chapman's Multiple Subject Credential program also integrates coursework, fieldwork, and student research and is targeted to individuals who wish to begin their teaching careers with a credential only.

The Multiple Subject Credential program is 34 total units or 40 total units for a Spanish/English bilingual authorization.

The Master of Arts in Teaching Secondary Education  program allows the candidate to obtain both the single subject credential and the master’s degree through an integrated program of coursework, fieldwork and student research. 

The Single Subject Credential program is an integrated program of coursework, fieldwork, and student research. This program is targeted to individuals who wish to begin their teaching careers with a credential only.

The Single Subject Credential options are English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science, and Music.

The Single Subject Credential program is 34 total units. The Master of Arts in Teaching: Secondary Education program is 40 total units.


The mission of the Chapman MAT and credential programs is to prepare reflective teacher-researchers who use integrated, developmentally appropriate and critical pedagogies and are ready to collaborate within diverse educational communities in order to lead us toward a more economically, socially, environmentally, and politically just world. 


Overall, the Chapman teacher education program aims to develop pre-service teachers who:

  • Possess strong content knowledge and the ability to use and reflect upon effective inclusive, research-based, and subject matter integrated pedagogies. 
  • Align themselves with educational theories reflective of Dewey’s progressivism and Freire’s critical pedagogy with the goal of relationship based and sustainable systems for a more equitable and socially just world. 
  • Value diversity and inclusiveness as an asset and are capable of fostering student strengths to support all students to reach their academic, personal, and societal potential. 
  • Demonstrate collaborative, resilient, caring, creative, and democratic attributes of a professional teacher.
  • Integrate a developmental understanding of the whole individual in classroom and school communities. 
  • Value, engage, and ally with students and their families who come from multiple and overlapping community contexts both local and global.   
  • Commit to ongoing learning throughout their career. 

CAEP Standard 1

Content and Pedagogical Knowledge. The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, can use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career- readiness standards.

  • How do you know that your candidates are successful? Are they proficient in the content knowledge of their field and how to teach it?

We ensure candidates are successful and proficient in content knowledge using matrices that are linked to all state (CA) Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), and then linking these specific expectations to Key Assignments. This includes content knowledge. See matrices with Key Assignment links below. In addition to the matrices and Key Assignments, candidates must pass the CSET (California Subject Examination for Teachers) in their respective content area the semester prior to student teaching. They may not continue on to student teaching unless they have passed the CSET.


  • How do you know your candidates are able to apply what they are learning so that their diverse P-12 students learn in pre-service clinical settings?

Assessment of application is done through Key Assignments (links in course matrices above), as well as Teacher Performance Assessment requirements. The new Teacher Performance Assessment 1 and 2 require candidates to very clearly demonstrate application of learning through documentation and video analysis. Candidates must pass both TPAs in order to be recommended for a credential. All information about current TPAs can be found here.

Although TPAs have changes recently, the prior TPAs also focused on these areas. Our WASC report primarily focuses on TPA results and pass rates.

See WASC report for more information here.

ALOAR reports describes passing scores on Teacher Performance Assessments and how we use this data to improve the program.

  • How do you know your candidates are able to demonstrate their skills in teaching at college- and career-ready levels, including a deep knowledge of content, solving problems, and critical thinking in that content, and employing their assessment and data literacy skills for P-12 student learning?

This is done through matrices and Key Assignments (see links below) as well as in Teacher Performance Assessment 2, which focuses on assessment. Please see TPA folder link above for more information on Teacher Performance Assessment 2.  

  • How do you know your candidates are ready to teach diverse learners under the different situations they may encounter on the job?

We require all candidates work with diverse groups of learners that reflect the greater Orange County community, per California Commission on Teacher Credentialing guidelines in their practicum and/or student teaching experiences. See pages 5 and 6 of the Clinical Practice Guidelines. We track this by ensuring partner schools meet the state diversity requirements.

Documentation of Candidate Placements

  • How do you know your candidates are proficient in applications of technology to enhance P-12 student learning?

This is an area we need to continue to develop. The current Key Assignment for EDUC 571 (required for all candidates) includes links to ISTE standards (see link to Key Assignment in matrices below). We would like to continue to develop in this area.

  • How do you know your candidates can apply appropriate professional and ethical standards in their work?

Dispositions requirements are included in each class that outline the dispositional standards candidates are expected to adhere to. Syllabi links can be found in the matrix links above. In addition, the TPEs include professional and ethical standards. The matrices show how these are addressed in the program.

  • Have you set external benchmarks for success for your program and your faculty?

Yes. We adhere to all California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Benchmarks. We report to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This is evidences through our program matrices and CTC reports.


  • Describe the evidence that most compellingly demonstrates your case, what you have learned from the evidence, and what conclusions and interpretations you have made.

Matrix and Key Assignment Alignment show that we are Introducing, Practicing and Assessing many Teacher Performance Expectations throughout the program. The WASC (ALOAR) report demonstrate that a majority of candidates are passing the Teacher Performance Assessments on the first attempt. These reports describe how we analyze the data yearly and make improvements to address candidate preparedness.

See WASC report for more information here.

  • Describe the uses you are making of the evidence for Standard 1 by sharing it with stakeholders and undertaking or planning modifications in your preparation courses and experiences.

We would like to continue to work on application of technology and aligning the ISTE standards to Key Assignments. Furthermore, behavior and classrooms management knowledge, skills, and abilities could be introduced, practiced, and assessed more thoroughly throughout the program. We would like to continue to work on these elements.

CAEP Standard 1.1 Evidence


Standard 1.1 Program Narrative

Candidates demonstrate an understanding of relevant standards via Key Assignments (see evidence above and Key Assignment links in matrices). We have just recently developed these matrices and aligned the Key Assignments and are looking forward to analyzing the results of the data after the spring 2019 semester when they have been fully implemented.

Provider Responsibilities

CAEP Standard 1.2. Providers ensure that candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their professional practice.

CAEP Standard 1.2 Evidence

Standard 1.2 Program Narrative

This is done through clinical summative assessments for each candidate following their student teaching semester, as well as through the Teacher Performance Expectations which are described thoroughly in the ALOAR links. See the ALOAR reports for more information.

This report provides description of data, analysis, and how the data used to make improvements to the program.

We hope to use the Key Assignments in the matrices for more robust data. These have begun to be implemented and we should have our first round of data by spring/summer 2019.

CAEP Standard 1.3. Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music [NASM]).

CAEP Standard 1.3 Evidence

  • Key assignments (see program course matrix)
  • Syllabi aligned with TPEs (see program course matrix)

Standard 1.3 Program Narrative

We specifically align all of our key assignments and syllabi with the California Teacher Performance Expectations. The matrices describe when TPEs are Introduced, Practiced, and Assessed throughout the program. See evidence 1.3 above.

CAEP Standard 1.4. Providers ensure that candidates demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college- and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).

CAEP Standard 1.4 Evidence

  • Fieldwork Assessments (see above)
  • Further, we intend to design and implement an annual survey of graduates. These surveys will attempt to gather data that identifies the ways in which graduates implement teaching that uses deep content knowledge with problem solving and critical thinking.

Standard 1.4 Program Narrative

This assessment is evidenced in the fieldwork assessments (see evidence above) in which candidates are assessed at minimum six times throughout the semester, including a formative and summative assessment.

We intend to address this standard in more detail through a survey of graduates that reflects their skills and commitment to affording all P-12 students access to college and career ready standards.

CAEP Standard 1.5 Providers ensure that completers model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice.

CAEP Standard 1.5 Evidence

Standard 1.5 Program Narrative

We intend to continue to develop this area by aligning additional Key Assignments to ISTE standards. A draft of the technology assignments we intend to implement in additional courses can be found below.

Draft ISTE aligned Key Assignments.

CAEP Standard 2

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


Our current program requires candidates to complete practicum and student teaching requirements in diverse school settings that reflect the diversity of the community.

Documentation of Candidate Placement

The new Teacher Performance Expectations (implemented for MAT SS/MS credential candidates in Spring 2019 require application of technology). Thus, we look forward to building this in our program.

We currently assess application of technology using the assessments conducted during student teaching.

CAEP Standard 2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation.

CAEP Standard 2.1 Evidence

Standard 2.1 Program Narrative

We use evidence from a number of data sources in order to ensure that we are developing strong district partnerships. These include MOUs with all partner districts, fieldwork and clinical practice handbooks, and a P-12 participation survey. We have particularly strong parternships with Santa Ana Unified School District and Orange Unified School District. All MS subject practicum students completed practicum work in two diverse school in the SAUSD in fall 2018. This demonstrates our commitment to collaboration with the school district. In addition, we continue to develop partnerships with local charter schools. We have three candidates completing their student teaching requirements at Samueli Academy, in Santa Ana CA.

We would like to work on developing technology collaborations with districts as this is something we not currently do in the SS and MS programs.

CAEP Standard 2.2 Clinical Educators. 

CAEP Standard 2.2 Evidence

Standard 2.2 Program Narrative

In order to select well-qualified mentor teachers, we work closely with districts in selection of mentor teachers, and pairing with candidates. We collect data on all mentor teachers and university supervisors to be sure they meet criteria to mentor (see evidence above). We also provide mentor teachers and supervisors with trainings each semester that outline the requirements for mentoring or supervising.

Per state requirements, we ensure that mentors receive a minimum of 10 hours of professional development in a variety of areas.

An example of the training can be found here: Student Teacher, Mentor and Supervisor Orientation.

We receive feedback from students and supervisors on mentor teachers in order to ensure that we continue to use quality mentor teachers in the field.

CAEP Standard 2.3 Clinical Experiences.

CAEP Standard 2.3 Evidence

Standard 2.3 Program Narrative

The matrices indicate that candidates must complete performance assessments at various points throughout the program. We work closely with our university partners in communicating theses expectations and soliciting feedback regarding assignments. Feedback is garnered via meetings and surveys.

CAEP Standard 3

Candidate Quality, Recruitment and Selectivity

As indicated in the data outlined below, our MAT program has purposefully focused on deepening our pool of teacher candidate applicants. Our belief is that deepening the program pool means we are focused on increasing the quality of potential future teachers. As a result, we are building our cohorts with an emphasis on how individual candidates’ high quality academic, dispositional, and diverse backgrounds will contribute to our teacher candidate cohort with the long-range goal of developing teachers to educate future Pk-12 students. With these principles, we strive to ensure our excellent candidates are prepared to teach in our schools by supporting them through the progression of the program of courses, clinical experiences, and into their own classrooms.


Admissions criteria can be found below

Application materials

Admissions data

Review and Evaluate Improvements on Student Admissions

  • Explanation of admission process changes and improvements

Based on the data above, the protocol was changed to align with state Teacher Performance Expectations and reflect candidate dispositions. The revised rubric can be found here.

  • Strengths and weaknesses identified in the application process

2017-2018 is the first year a group interview process was used and we suspect this resulted in less need for remediation or incidents with candidates not completing the program. More data are needed to identify this.

  • Planned changes for next academic year (list and explain)

Continued to development of the revised intake rubric. Continued focus on candidate dispositions via the intake questions and rubric. Each candidate will be scored on dispositions upon admission and each semester throughout the program.

When responding to the questions below, please: (a) refer to specific program data, and (b) justify your responses with data analysis.

1. When reviewing the program’s admission standards and process, do they contain sufficient, appropriate, and multiple measures of candidate qualifications (including disposition) for your program?

Yes. They require a minimum 3.0 GPA, letters of recommendation, a personal statement, and a basic skills test passing score (CBEST). Furthermore, the intake questions during the interview focus on dispositions for teaching.

2. Are this past year’s admitted students high-quality candidates?

Yes. We have high-quality candidates. A majority of the candidates pass the Teacher Performance Assessments on the first attempt. See the ALOAR reports for more information.

3. Do this past year’s admitted students reflect the diversity of Orange County/Southern California

According to Statistical Atlas the racial/ethnic diversity of Orange County is 43% white, 33% Hispanic/Latino, 19% Asian/PI, 1.6% Black, and 3% multi-racial. The diversity of our candidates is shown below.

This table shows that we need to increase the diversity of applicants and candidates admitted into the program.

According to Statistical Atlas the racial/ethnic diversity of Orange County is 43% white, 33% Hispanic/Latino, 19% Asian/PI, 1.6% Black, and 3% multi-racial. The diversity of our candidates is shown here.

Our data show that we need to increase the diversity of applicants and candidates admitted into the program, particular Hispanic/Latino candidates.

4. When reviewing your program’s recruiting and admission processes, what improvements are planned for this area?

a. This year we increased available scholarship money to up to $7000 per enrollee in order to attract students who may not otherwise be able to afford tuition.

b. We instituted Chapman specific information sessions targeting Juniors and Seniors in areas such as Spanish, Sciences, and other related fields in order to attract current students.

c. We ran targeted Facebook and digital ads.  Please note that despite requesting SMC prioritize this starting in June, they did not run any ads until mid-October.

  • Explain how you know that the evidence you are assembling to justify your case for Standard 3 is valid and credible. What can you say about data validity and reliability? About data relevance for the topic that it is to inform? About its representativeness?

The data on student race/ethnicity is valid and reliable as it represents the actual students who are entering our programs.

We intend to establish reliability and validity of the dispositions rubric moving forward.

  • Describe the uses you are making of the evidence for Standard 3 by involving stakeholders and undertaking or planning modifications in your preparation courses and experiences.

We intend to use this evidence to continue to recruit diverse groups of teacher candidates, as well as work on ensuring that the candidates have the necessary dispositions for teaching.

CAEP Standard 3.1. Plan for Recruitment of Diverse Candidates Who Meet Employment Needs

CAEP Standard 3.1 Evidence

See diversity reports above.

Standard 3.1 Program Narrative

As mentioned in the above narrative, current candidates do not represent the diversity of the community in many ways. We intend to work on this by partnering with the university on its initiative to increase diversity across campus. This includes offering tuition support to students who may not otherwise be able to affords to the attend the program. For example, for spring 2018 admits, we prioritized college fellowships for candidates interested in the bilingual authorization.

CAEP Standard 3.2 Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement REQUIRED COMPONENT

CAEP Standard 3.2 Evidence

Standard 3.2 Program Narrative

We intend to work on meeting this standard by regularly reviewing the GPA of each student in the program. According to university guidelines, graduate students must receive a C+ or better in each class, or they must repeat the class. Each semester, the program sends out a students of concern survey to inquire about students who may need extra support in order to pass a course with an acceptable grade.

CAEP Standard 3.3. Additional Selectivity Factors.

CAEP Standard 3.3 Evidence

Standard 3.3 Program Narrative

The dispositions rubrics included in the evidence section above are aligned with the California Teacher Performance Expectations disposition requirements. We intend to develop reliability and validity of this rubric as well as ensure that it is completed for each student, each semester.

CAEP Standard 3.4 Selectivity During Preparation.

CAEP Standard 3.4 Evidence

Standard 3.4 Program Narrative

The program uses a student tracker to monitor student progress. This is included in the evidence above. All faculty are asked to contact advisees at least one time per semester to check in with progress and actively advise candidates. Candidate program evaluations are also used to monitor program progress.

CAEP Standard 3.5. Selection at Completion.

CAEP Standard 3.5 Evidence

  • Program Evaluations – see above 

Standard 3.5 Program Narrative

The program tracks student completion of all requirements via student program evaluations on the university management system. This allows the credential analyst to verify all requirements are met prior to recommending for a credential.

CAEP Standard 3.6. Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate understands the expectations of the profession, including codes of ethics, professional standards for practice, and relevant laws and policies. CAEP monitors the development of measures that assess candidates’ success and revises standards in light of new results.

CAEP Standard 3.6 Evidence

Standard 3.6 Program Narrative

Prior to recommending a candidate for credentialing, the credential analyst verifies that all requirements on the program are met as well as all requirements for credentialing. This includes successfully passing student teaching, and earning a passing score on all TPEs including dispositional and ethical areas.

TPE 6 is associated with an educators professional development and encompasses demonstrating dispositions and ethical judgment necessary for the teaching profession. The following summative scores from student teaching supervisors for fall 2017 and spring 2018 show that candidates are meeting expectations in this area, with and slight increase in mean from fall to spring in the same academic year.

Fall 2017
N 5
Mean 3.35
Median 3
Min 3
Max 4
Range 1
SD 0.436


Spring 2018
N 15
Mean 3.66
Median 3
Min 0.18
Max 17
Range 16.81
SD 3.685

CAEP Standard 4

Program Impact. The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

CAEP Standard 4.1 Impact on P-12 Student Learning and Development – The provider documents, using multiple measures that program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth. Multiple measures shall include all available growth measures (including value-added measures, student growth percentiles, and student learning and development objectives) required by the state for its teachers and available to educator preparation providers, other state-supported P-12 impact measures, and any other measures employed by the provider.

CAEP Standard 4.1 Evidence

Standard 4.1 Program Narrative

We intend to conduct case studies of graduates after they have completed the program. The research questions focus on program completers’ contributions to student-learning growth. The goal of these case studies is to identify strengths areas if improvement for program completers so that we may make necessary adjustment to ensure the positive impact of program completers on student learning. The specific questions include a) In what ways does Attallah College’s teacher preparation program contribute to student-learning growth? and b) In what ways can Attallah College’s teacher preparation program improve program execution to support stronger student-learning outcomes?

We intend to collect impact on P-12 learning and development data through two separate methods. First, we propose a select a sample of Attallah Graduates that would be willing to participate as case study sites. (Candidates will be selected based on ensuring sample is representative of program completers including education specialists inclusive of mild/moderate and moderate/severe, multiple subject, single subject, as well as MAT and MACI program completers.) Second, we will request program completer volunteers who may be willing to conduct an action research project during their first and/or second year of teaching. For study methods, we will be requesting participation during teacher candidates last semester of their teacher education program with the goal of ensuring we have a sample of active participants moving into teaching. We will stay in close contact with our volunteers between program completion and employment to improve response rate of study volunteers.

CAEP Standard 4.2 Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness - The provider demonstrates, through structured and validated observation instruments and/or student surveys, that completers effectively apply the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions that the preparation experiences were designed to achieve.

CAEP Standard 4.2 Evidence

Standard 4.2 Program Narrative

Please see description of plan for 4.1

CAEP Standard 4.3 Satisfaction of Employers. The provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data and including employment milestones such as promotion and retention, that employers are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their assigned responsibilities in working with P-12 students.

CAEP Standard 4.3 Evidence

Standard 4.3 Program Narrative

We have developed a multi-step plan which can be viewed via the 4.3 evidence link. This plan includes an employer survey as well as follow-up interviews with employers in order to obtain necessary information regarding employer satisfaction.

CAEP Standard 4.4 Satisfaction of Completers. The provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data, that program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job, and that the preparation was effective.

CAEP Standard 4.4 Evidence

Standard 4.4 Program Narrative

We conduct a graduate outcome survey and exit survey that are used for program improvement. The exit survey shows that although candidates feel prepared in areas, they are requesting more focus on specific strategies and methods to use in the field.

Graduate Outcome from 2016-2017 are included below. We intend to continue to survey graduates of the program. Analysis and next steps are also included below.

Review and Evaluate Improvements on Graduate Outcome

  • Explanation of your program’s graduate/alumni assessment system – changes and improvements made this year

Completers are assessed to determine outcomes post-graduation. As shown in the table below, 82% of the 17 respondents to the survey are employed full-time, with approximately 18% unemployed or “other.” A majority are employed as full-time teachers in local school districts. 


Answer Percent Count
Yes, Full-Time Employed 82 14
Yes, Part-Time Employed 0 0
No, Currently Not Employed 12 2
Other 6 1
Total 100 17
  • Strengths and weaknesses identified in graduate/alumni data

Strengths: Many graduates who completed the survey are currently employed in the teaching profession. This shows that graduates are in the profession and performing successfully.

Weaknesses: When asked if they felt prepared to implement a variety of strategies such as Universal Design for Learning, only about 53% indicated that they felt “well prepared” or “very well prepared.” Only 38% felt prepared in subject matter expertise, with one respondent indicating the need for more information related to math and science instruction. Furthermore, approximately 50% felt well prepared or very well prepared to organize learning environments. This may mean that graduates are not fully utilizing strategies, and that they do not feel they understand the content well enough when leave. This may ultimately impact job performance. Furthermore, there are some graduates who are currently unemployed. The current survey does not allow us to find out if the reasons for unemployment are related to the program—either preparation or support after graduation.

Answer Percent Count
Not At All Prepared 7 1
Little Prepared 7 1
Adequately Prepared 29 4
Well Prepared 43 6
Very Well Prepared 14 2
Total 100 14
  • Planned changes for next academic year (list and explain)

The new program design requires students to have more in-depth clinical experiences in which they spend 5 days per week, 3 hours per day in a classroom during their second semester. We plan to revise these courses to include more “hands-on” and practice-based experiences in order to provide students with the more “practical application” requested in the survey.

We will follow a small sample of teachers and conduct observations in classrooms in order to assess teaching quality after graduation. This will provide us with more in-depth information on teaching quality post-graduation. This also aligns with accreditation requirements.

Collaborate with the University’s Career and Professional Development center to assist candidates in job applications and interviews.