Www.unf.edu



College of Education and Human Services (COEHS)Effectiveness and Accountability Report: 20152009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014An Executive Summary Megan Schramm-Possinger, Director of Assessment and Research2009-2012 Data and Corresponding Text Provided by Claire Torres-Lugo 223774011557000“Educating Professionals Who Impact the Lives of Children and Adults”IndexSection 1 COEHS Summary Data Florida Licensure Exam: 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) by Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015Section 3University of North Florida’s State Report Card-Title II Report: Data withState ComparisonsSection 4COEHS Program Completers’ First Year Employment Data (2009-2010 thru 2011-2013)Section 5Satisfaction Survey Results for all COEHS Teacher Education Programs Completers (2012-2013)Section 6Employers’ Satisfaction of Beginning Teachers Graduated from COEHS in 2009-2010, 2010-2011, & 2012- 2013 Section 7COEHS Average Entrance and Exit GPAs for Candidates and Completers of Teacher Preparation Programs and Advanced Programs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, & 2013-2014Section 8Graduation Rates for Students Admitted and Enrolled in COEHS Programs -pendingSection 9Employment Retention Rates of COEHS Program CompletersSection 10P-12 Impact Data: Florida’s Value-Added Model (VAM) Scores IntroductionThe College of Education and Human Services is committed to the preparation of educators and administrators who will impact student learning and achievement. This report summarizes data used in important decision-making processes including program effectiveness, curricular changes, and the quality of UNF’s graduates while enrolled in COEHS teacher preparation programs and in the years following graduation. For questions about this report, contact Dr. Megan Schramm-Possinger, at megan.possinger@unf.edu-1905012319000Sincerely,Marsha LupiInterim Dean, College of Education and Human Services Section 1 COEHS Summary Data for the Florida Licensure Exam: 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015Section 1 and Section 2 Overview: Candidates in UNF teacher education programs leading to initial certification are required to pass all sections of the Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) prior to graduation. Upon admission to a teacher education program in the College, candidates are required to demonstrate competency in the areas of mathematics, reading, writing, and English language skills by submitting passing scores on all portions of the General Knowledge (GK) test. Prior to graduation, a program evaluation review is conducted to determine if a candidate has successfully completed all program requirements. These exit reviews include passing scores on the Professional Education (PED) and Subject Area Exams (SAE) of the FTCE. As shown in 1.1 and 1.2 below, UNF has had a 100% institutional pass rate for completers in all programs. Data are also disaggregated by program as shown in section 2. 1.1 Summary of Program Completers Initial Teacher Preparation Programs*YearProgram Completers# Takingthe Exam# Passingthe Exam% Passing the Exam2014-20152382382381002013-20142782782781002012-20133043043021002011-20122652652651002010-20113373373371002009-2010332332332100Source: Florida Department of Education. *Art K-12, Biology 6-12, Chemistry 6-12, Elementary Education/ESOL K-6, English 6-12/ESOL, Exceptional Student Education ESOL K-12, Hearing Impaired K-12, Mathematics 6-12, MG Math/MG Science 5-9, Music K-12, PreK-Primary Education/ESOL, Physical Education K-12, Physics, Social Science 6-12, and the Educator Preparation Institute (EPI).1.2 Summary of Program Completers for Other School Professional** Degrees (2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015)YearProgram Completers# Takingthe Exam# Passingthe Exam% Passing the Exam2014-20153838381002013-20142929291002012-20133030301002011-20124242421002010-20114343431002009-2010484848100Source: Florida Department of Education. **Educational Leadership and Guidance and Counseling PK-12.Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Exam 2014-2015Initial Teacher Preparation Programs-Title II Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestArt K-12Art K-123100%Biology 6-12Biology 6-123100%Chemistry 6-12Chemistry 6-12Elementary Education/ESOL K-6Elementary Education K-6105100%English 6-12/ESOLEnglish 6-124100%Exceptional Student EducationESOLK-12Exceptional Student Education K-12 (Bachelor and Master’s Level)18100%Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-12(Master’s Level)3100%Mathematics 6-12Mathematics 6-1210100%MG Math/MG Science 5-9Middle Grades General Science 5-94100%Music K-12Music K-125100%PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr. 3Prekindergarten/Primary PK-310100%Physical Education K-12Physical Education5100%PhysicsPhysics 6-12Social Science 6-12Social Science 6-1211100%Educator Preparation InstituteProfessional Education57100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial Preparation Title II Programs238100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II Report and Standard Reports). All candidates are required to pass the Professional Education (PED) and the General Knowledge (GK) exams of the FTCE in order to be considered for graduation and a program completer.Non-Title II Programs Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestEducational LeadershipFlorida Educational Leadership Exam13100%Guidance and Counseling PK-12Guidance and Counseling PK-1225100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Non-Title II Programs38100%Total Unit Overall Pass Rate276100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports). COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2013-2014Initial Teacher Preparation Programs-Title II Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestArt K-12Art K-122100%Biology 6-12Biology 6-12Chemistry 6-12Chemistry 6-12Elementary Education/ESOL K-6Elementary Education K-6121100%English 6-12/ESOLEnglish 6-1212100%Exceptional Student EducationESOLK-12Exceptional Student Education K-12 (Bachelor and Master’s Level)24100%Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-12(Master’s Level)5100%Mathematics 6-12Mathematics 6-125100%MG Math/MG Science 5-9Middle Grades General Science 5-911100%Music K-12Music K-123100%PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr. 3Prekindergarten/Primary PK-323100%Physical Education K-12Physical Education9100%PhysicsPhysics 6-12Social Science 6-12Social Science 6-1223100%Educator Preparation InstituteProfessional Education40100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial Preparation Title II Programs278100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II Report and Standard Reports). All candidates are required to pass the Professional Education (PED) and the General Knowledge (GK) exams of the FTCE in order to be considered for graduation and a program completer.Non-Title II Programs Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestEducational LeadershipFlorida Educational Leadership Exam16100%Guidance and Counseling PK-12Guidance and Counseling PK-1213100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Non-Title II Programs29100%Total Unit Overall Pass Rate307100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports). Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2012-2013Initial Teacher Preparation Programs-Title II Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestArt K-12Art K-123100%Biology 6-12Biology 6-122100%Chemistry 6-12Chemistry 6-12Elementary Education/ESOL K-6Elementary Education K-6167100%English 6-12/ESOLEnglish 6-1213100%Exceptional Student EducationESOLK-12Exceptional Student Education K-12 (Bachelor and Master’s Level)20100%Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-12(Master’s Level)10100%Mathematics 6-12Mathematics 6-1211100%MG Math/MG Science 5-9Middle Grades General Science 5-99100%Music K-12Music K-121100%PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr. 3Prekindergarten/Primary PK-310100%Physical Education K-12Physical Education10100%PhysicsPhysics 6-12Social Science 6-12Social Science 6-1213100%Educator Preparation InstituteProfessional Education20100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial Preparation Title II Programs289100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II Report and Standard Reports). All candidates are required to pass the Professional Education (PED) and the General Knowledge (GK) exams of the FTCE in order to be considered for graduation and a program completer.Non-Title II Programs Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestEducational LeadershipFlorida Educational Leadership Exam15100%Guidance and Counseling PK-12Guidance and Counseling PK-1215100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Non-Title II Programs30100%Total Unit Overall Pass Rate319100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports). Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012Initial Teacher Preparation Programs-Title II Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestArt K-12Art K-123100%Biology 6-12Biology 6-121100%Chemistry 6-12Chemistry 6-12Elementary Education/ESOL K-6Elementary Education K-6148100%English 6-12/ESOLEnglish 6-126100%Exceptional Student EducationESOLK-12Exceptional Student Education K-12 (Bachelor and Master’s Level)21100%Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-124100%Mathematics 6-12Mathematics 6-127100%MG Math/MG Science 5-9Middle Grades General Science 5-95100%Music K-12Music K-125100%PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr. 3Prekindergarten/Primary PK-321100%Physical Education K-12Physical Education11100%PhysicsPhysics 6-12Social Science 6-12Social Science 6-1215100%Educator Preparation InstituteProfessional Education18100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial Preparation Title II Programs265100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II Report and Standard Reports). All candidates are required to pass the Professional Education (PED) and the General Knowledge (GK) exams of the FTCE in order to be considered for graduation and a program completer.Non-Title II Programs Name of Licensure Test (Content)# of Test Takers% Passing State Licensure TestEducational LeadershipFlorida Educational Leadership Exam24100%Guidance and Counseling PK-12Guidance and Counseling PK-1218100%Subtotal Pass Rate for Non-Title II Programs42100%Total Unit Overall Pass Rate307100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports). Section 3, University of North Florida’s State Report Card-Title II Report: Data with State ComparisonsSection 3 Overview: In addition to collecting data for program completers as summarized in Sections 1 and 2, the College collects data on passing FTCE scores for students enrolled in courses other than the student internship or the final “capstone course.” The data below summarizes passing rates for students in UNF’s teacher preparation programs who took the test during the 2014-2015 year as “other enrolled.” 3.1 FLDOE Comprehensive Assessment Data for All Sections in the Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) for “Other Enrolled” Students 2014-2015COEHS Pass Rate for Initial Teacher Preparation Program StatewideAverage Pass *Rate for Initial Teacher Preparation ProgramsBasic Skills or General Knowledge Test (GK)~ 100%97%Professional Education Test89%88%One Subject Area Exam81%81%Note: “Other enrolled” students include the number of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs taking the FTCE prior to enrolling in an internship course or capstone course. *The Statewide Average Pass Rate were released in May of 2016. “To protect student privacy these data do not include:Scale Scores and High/Low/Cut Scores for all tests with multiple sub-tests..Number of Individuals Passing a test when less than 10 UNF students took that test.Pass Rate percentage when less than 10 UNF students took that test.Individual test scale scores when less than 3 UNF students took that test. ?NOTE: EPI Subject Matter Results are aggregated by institution; not by test.? So no similar table exists for UNF EPI OE students” (John Hansen, personal communication, July 6, 2016).Section 4 COEHS First Year Employment Data (2009-2010 through 2014-2015)Section 4 Overview: Once a year, the state identifies program completers and matches them to employers. These data are used as part of the College’s continuous improvement efforts as evidenced in UNF’s Institutional Program Evaluation Plans (IPEPs), institutional strategic plans, institutional reports, departmental program reviews, and other uses as deemed appropriate. FDOE data indicates that on average, 68% of UNF’s completers – from 2008-2009 thru 2013-2014 -- from initial teacher certification programs, including Educator Preparation graduates, were hired in a public school in the state of Florida. These data exclude UNF program completers hired in private and/or out of state schools.Program NameNumber of Program Completers from 2008-2009 thru 2013-2014The Average of 2011-2012 Program Completers Who Were Employed in Either the 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 Academic YearsArt2333.3% (of 23) = 7.66Music1660.0% (of 16) = 9.60Mathematics38100.0% (of 38) = 38Social Science11366.7% (of 113) = 75.37Hearing Impaired3625.0% (of 36) = 9Guidance and Counseling11387.5% (of 113) = 75.37MG Math MG Gen. Sci.5680.0% (of 56) = 44.80PreK-/ ESOL17066.7% (of 170) = 113.39English/ESOL7266.7% (of 72) = 48.02PE6072.7% (of 60)= 43.62EXE/ESOL11776.2% (of 117) = 89.15Ele. Ed./ESOL99069.6% (of 990) = 689.04EPI20357.9% (of 203) = 117.54Total:2,007Average: Total (1367 employed/2007 completers) = 68%Section 5 Satisfaction Survey Results for all COEHS Teacher Education ProgramCompleters (2013-2014)Section 5 Overview: The College tracks completers’ perceptions of their professional competency in the domains listed below. Also assessed are these completers’ proximal career goals, as well as the characteristics of the schools in which they work. Those surveyed have been employed in public schools in the state of Florida from approximately September 2014 to April and/or May of 2015. Following is a summary of these data for 2014 graduates. (N = 34)1. Please identify the answer that best describes your teaching experience (i.e., years of experience).#AnswerResponse%10-1 year1029%21-2 years1750%32-3 years00%4more than 3 years721%Total34100%2. What is your employment status for next year?#AnswerResponse%1Contract Signed1235%2Contract Expected1544%3Contract not Renewed00%4Teaching in Another District412%5Teaching in Another State26%6Unsure13%7Teaching at a Private School00%8Leaving Teaching00%Total34100%3. Do you teach in…?#AnswerResponse%10An urban school1338%11A suburban school1235%12A rural school926%Total34100%4. Does your school have…?#AnswerResponse%1Over 50% of Students on Free or Reduced Lunch2265%2Heavy parental participation1338%5. What grade do you teach?#AnswerResponse%1Pre K-First13%2K-6th1338%36th-8th618%4Secondary Level (9-12)1441%Total34100%6. Overall, how effective do you feel as a teacher?#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1132%2Effective2059%3Developing39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.76Variance0.37Standard Deviation0.61Total Responses34How effective was your teacher preparation program in preparing you to do the following?7. Sequence concepts and lessons linked to prior knowledge to ensure coherence#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1441%2Effective1853%3Need Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.65Variance0.36Standard Deviation0.60Total Responses348. Design instruction for students to achieve mastery#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1235%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement412%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.76Variance0.43Standard Deviation0.65Total Responses349. Align instruction with state-adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1029%2Effective2162%3Need Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.82Variance0.45Standard Deviation0.67Total Responses3410. Select appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1235%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.79Variance0.47Standard Deviation0.69Total Responses3411. Use diagnostic student data to plan lessons#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1029%2Effective1647%3Needs Improvement824%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.94Variance0.54Standard Deviation0.74Total Responses3412. Develop developmentally appropriate learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills and competencies#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement412%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.74Variance0.44Standard Deviation0.67Total Responses3413. Organize and manage the resources of time and space to support student learning#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.71Variance0.40Standard Deviation0.63Total Responses3414. Manage individual and class behaviors through a well-planned management system#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective926%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement721%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean2.00Variance0.61Standard Deviation0.78Total Responses3415. Convey high expectations to all students#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1544%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.62Variance0.36Standard Deviation0.60Total Responses3416. Respect students' differing needs and diversity#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1956%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement00%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.44Variance0.25Standard Deviation0.50Total Responses3417. Model clear written communication skills#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective2162%2Effective1235%3Needs Improvement13%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.41Variance0.31Standard Deviation0.56Total Responses3418. How effective was your teacher preparation program in preparing you to do the following:...deliver engaging and challenging lessons#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.71Variance0.40Standard Deviation0.63Total Responses3419. Maintain a climate of openness, fairness and support#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective2059%2Effective1441%3Needs Improvement00%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.41Variance0.25Standard Deviation0.50Total Responses3420. Model clear oral communication skills#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1853%2Effective1338%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.56Variance0.44Standard Deviation0.66Total Responses3421. Develop a climate that fosters inquiry#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective926%2Effective2265%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.82Variance0.33Standard Deviation0.58Total Responses3422. Integrate appropriate and available information technologies that foster student inquiry#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1441%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory26%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.79Variance0.71Standard Deviation0.84Total Responses3423. Integrate appropriate and available communication technologies#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1341%2Effective1547%3Needs Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory26%Total32100%StatisticValueMean1.78Variance0.69Standard Deviation0.83Total Responses3224. Utilize appropriate assistive technologies that enable students to achieve their educational goals#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1239%2Effective1239%3Needs Improvement619%4Unsatisfactory13%Total31100%StatisticValueMean1.87Variance0.72Standard Deviation0.85Total Responses3125. Adapt the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1750%2Effective1441%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.59Variance0.43Standard Deviation0.66Total Responses3426. ...teach literacy strategies across the curriculum through explicit instruction#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1235%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory26%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.91Variance0.75Standard Deviation0.87Total Responses3427. ...identify gaps in students' subject matter knowledge#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1029%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.91Variance0.57Standard Deviation0.75Total Responses3428. ...modify instruction to respond to student needs (e.g., gaps in knowledge, preconceptions or misconceptions)#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1235%2Effective1956%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.74Variance0.38Standard Deviation0.62Total Responses3429. ...relate and integrate the subject matter with other disciplines and/or life experiences#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1647%2Effective1647%3Needs Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.59Variance0.37Standard Deviation0.61Total Responses3430. ...employ higher-order questioning techniques#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.71Variance0.40Standard Deviation0.63Total Responses3431. ...teach for student understanding using varied and appropriate strategies and resources#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1441%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.68Variance0.41Standard Deviation0.64Total Responses3432. ...differentiate instruction based on an assessment of differing needs and diversity of students#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.82Variance0.63Standard Deviation0.80Total Responses3433. ...encourage and provide immediate and specific feedback to promote student achievement#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1647%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement00%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.59Variance0.43Standard Deviation0.66Total Responses3434. ...utilize student feedback to monitor and support instructional needs and to adjust instruction#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1647%2Effective1441%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.68Variance0.59Standard Deviation0.77Total Responses3435. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments and measures to inform instruction based on those needs#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1750%2Effective1132%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.71Variance0.70Standard Deviation0.84Total Responses3436. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments and measures to drive the learning process#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1132%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement515%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.88Variance0.59Standard Deviation0.77Total Responses3437. ...design and align formative assessments that match learning objectives#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1647%3Needs Improvement412%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.79Variance0.59Standard Deviation0.77Total Responses3438. ...design and align summative assessments to determine mastery of learning objectives#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1338%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement618%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.79Variance0.53Standard Deviation0.73Total Responses3439. ...use a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1441%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.68Variance0.41Standard Deviation0.64Total Responses3440. ...share the outcomes and implication of student assessment data with the student and his/her parents or caregivers#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1029%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement412%4Unsatisfactory26%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.94Variance0.66Standard Deviation0.81Total Responses3441. ...modify textbook-based or "homegrown" assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying skill levels#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective926%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement721%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.94Variance0.48Standard Deviation0.69Total Responses3442. ...use technology and/or software to organize and integrate assessment data#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1132%2Effective1853%3Needs Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory39%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.91Variance0.75Standard Deviation0.87Total Responses3443. ...design professional goals based upon your students' instructional needs#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1132%2Effective1750%3Needs Improvement412%4Unsatisfactory26%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.91Variance0.69Standard Deviation0.83Total Responses3444. ...use research to improve instruction and student achievement#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1029%2Effective2162%3Needs Improvement26%4Unsatisfactory13%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.82Variance0.45Standard Deviation0.67Total Responses3445. ...collaborate with colleagues to evaluate learning outcomes and modify instruction/curricula accordingly#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1647%2Effective1544%3Needs Improvement39%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.62Variance0.43Standard Deviation0.65Total Responses3446. Engage in ongoing reflective practice#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective1853%2Effective1544%3Need Improvement13%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.50Variance0.32Standard Deviation0.56Total Responses3447. Accept constructive feedback#AnswerResponse%1Highly Effective2265%2Effective1235%3Need Improvement00%4Unsatisfactory00%Total34100%StatisticValueMean1.35Variance0.24Standard Deviation0.49Total Responses34As evidenced above, graduates’ self-reported effectiveness in accepting constructive feedback, engage[ing] in ongoing reflective practice, establishing high expectations of all learners, and respect[ing] students’ differing needs and diversity, illustrates the constellation of core competencies pre-service teachers at UNF have cultivated. In addition, completers reported having had positive experiences as students in the COEHS. One such comment was, “I think the program is great. The classroom management course was very useful as well as the field experiences including student teaching.”In 2013-2014, the lowest ranked items pertained to completers’ perceived ability to “Utilize appropriate assistive technologies that enable students to achieve their educational goals”; “Analyze and apply data from multiple assessments and measures to diagnose students’ learning needs”; and, “Utilize technology to organize and integrate assessment data.” Completers’ self-reported ability to analyze student data and use this information to diagnose their students’ learning needs was not highly ranked among the 2009-2010 & 2012-2013 cohorts either. These findings, which have been and will continue to be used by UNF faculty to guide course planning and curricular development, are nonetheless, not surprising as these skills take time to cultivate and are, to some degree, context-specific – e.g., the assessment data school’s use depends upon the pedagogical tools they use. Section 6: Administrators’ Appraisals of UNF Completers at the End of Their First Year of Teaching, 2013-2014Section 6 Overview:* Thirty-three administrators participated in the survey, however, some respondents did not answer specific questions. The total number of responses is explicated for each query.Question one: Please write down the name of the school, as well as the district, in which you are an administrator.Of the 33 administrators that participated in the survey, 31 responded to this question.The largest number of respondents, 17 out of 31, are administrators in Duval County. The second largest set of respondents are from Clay County (N=4). Two administrators work in Nassau, Putnam and Baker County, respectively. Only one participant works in the remaining counties of Pasco, Brevard, Bradford, and Hillsborough. Although this sample size is low, the percentage of respondents working in each county is not disparate from the larger population.Name of SchoolCountyTotalBaker County High School Baker County1Westside ElementaryBaker County1Bradford High SchoolBradford County1Imagine Schools at West MelbourneBrevard County1Clay Hill ElementaryClay County1Lake Asbury ElementaryClay County1Oakleaf Junior High School Clay County1Orange Park High School Clay County1Alimacani Elementary School Duval County1Andrew Jackson High School Duval County2Atlantic Beach Elementary Duval County1Atlantic Coast High School Duval County1Carter G. Woodson Elementary SchoolDuval County1Crystal Springs ElementaryDuval County1Jacksonville Heights Elementary Duval County1Kings Trail Elementary Duval County1KIPP VOICE Elementary (part of KIPP Jacksonville) Duval County1Mandarin High SchoolDuval County1Neptune Beach ElementaryDuval County1Oceanway Elementary Duval County1Reynolds Lane Elementary Duval County2Sadie Tillis Elementary School Duval County1West Jacksonville ElementaryDuval County1Doby Elementary Hillsborough County1Callahan Intermediate SchoolNassau County1Yulee Middle SchoolNassau County1Pasco County1Interlachen Elementary Putnam County1MellonPutnam County1Total31Question two: Please click on the characteristics below that are consistent with the school in which you are an administrator -- you are welcome to choose multiple answers.Of the 33 administrators that participated in the survey, 31 responses pertained to school location –i.e., urban, suburban, rural -- and grade levels; 22 responses pertained to school type (i.e. charter school) or the percentage of students eligible for free/reduced position of Schools Taught inNPercentages of N=311 Urban 1032%2 Suburban 1445%3 Rural 723%Total31100%4 Elementary School 2168%5 Middle School310%6 High School723%Total31101%7 Charter School 29%8 50% or more students on Free or Reduced Lunch523%9 75% or more students on Free or Reduced Lunch 1568%Total22100%Question 3: To What degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to other beginning teachers in their ability to:# Question Much Weaker than other beginning teachers Slightly weaker than other beginning teachersSimilar to other beginning teachers Stronger than other beginning teachersMuch Stronger than other beginning teachers ...use assessment strategies (traditional and alternative) to diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses? 0115170...use/develop assessments to guide instruction? 1018140...use effective communication techniques with students and all other stakeholders? 0216105...engage in continuous improvement for self and school? 0314114...use pedagogical techniques and strategies to foster students' critical, creative, and evaluative thinking? 1115141...use teaching and learning strategies that reflect students' cultural, learning styles, special needs and socioeconomic backgrounds? 0315122...adhere to the code of ethics and principles of professional conduct of the education profession? 0016106...effectively manage the classroom?211595...use theories of learning and development to guide the establishment of a positive learning environment that supports the social, emotional and intellectual development of all students? 0310164...demonstrate knowledge and conceptual understanding of the subject matter? 0113172...create an engaging, active learning environment where students work well collaboratively, interact appropriately, and are motivated to learn? 0311163# Question Much Weaker than other beginning teachers Slightly weaker than other beginning teachersSimilar to other beginning teachers Stronger than other beginning teachersMuch Stronger than other beginning teachers ...plan and implement instruction for a variety of learners/learning environments? 0213153...demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge?0119103...work with education professionals, parents and other stakeholders in the continuous improvement of the educational experiences of students? 0118113...use appropriate technological tools to facilitate students learning?0012183...attend events held by the school held outside of the school day? 0215133...write and speak in a logical and understandable manner with appropriate grammar? 0013173...recognize signs of students’ difficulty with reading and computational processes? 0215151...devise strategies to fortify the reading and computational process of students who are still building these skills? 1020101Question 4: What are the major strengths you have noted in beginning teachers who graduated from teacher preparation programs at the University of North Florida?The most frequently mentioned themes related to teacher graduates’ strengths were their professional knowledge (23%), personal attributes (21%), professional skills (16%), and willingness to learn (15%). Additional strengths articulated by administrators include: a team player (10%); a skilled classroom manager (6%), and dexterity in lesson planning (5%). Among the other themes mentioned were a willingness to engage personal in and professional growth -- mentioned twice --, as well as completers’ realistic expectations (mentioned once). It is important to note that a willingness to learn is strongly associated with acting as a team player, suggesting that completers’ have displayed behaviors indicative of proactive dispositions – such as positivity and persistence.StrengthsFrequencyPercentagesTeam Player (Including strong work ethic; in and out of classroom; with all stakeholders)610%Professional Knowledgebasic/general 2pedagogical content/pedagogy 3eruditeness 1reading and ESOL/ELL strategies 2current teaching practices 1data 1small groups 1implementation and intervention of strategies 1Florida standards 1ESE requirement 11423%Professional Skillstechnology/computer/doc ion 3organization 1approach to teaching 1many/necessary skills 2communication – oral and written 31016%Classroom Management46%Lesson Planning(Including engaging activities)35%Willingness to Learn for Professional Growth desire for 2willingness to 4receptive to feedback 3915%Personal Attributesconfident, high energy, motivated, committed, determined, dedicated, hard worker, professionalism, engaging for students 9 (1 each)positive, flexible 4 (2 each)1321%Other:personal and professional experiences 2realistic expectations 135%Total62 comments(N=27)100%Question 5: Approximately how many UNF-trained beginning teachers have been employed in your school over the past five years?Range: 0–12Total: 26 ResponsesMost common responses: #3 or #5 employees# of UNF-trained beginning teachers employed in the past 5 yearsFrequencyPercentage0-1 14%128%1-514%228%3519%428%5 27%5+14%614%1028%10+14%1214%TotalN=26100%In summary, sixty completers from either the Educational Leadership or Guidance Programs and 150 completers from the Teacher Preparation Program were evaluated by school staff in 2011-2012. Of the 210 total completers evaluated, 86% were deemed to be highly effective or effective in their professional roles. Ten percent were not evaluated, and only four percent were deemed “in need of improvement” by their superiors.Section 7 COEHS Average GPA for Completers of Teacher Preparation Programs and Advanced Programs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014Section 7 Overview: All applicants seeking admission to the College’s initial teacher certification programs, at the undergraduate and graduate levels, must first be admitted to the institution in accordance with the University of North Florida’s established admission requirements and policies. Once admitted to UNF, applicants interested in initial teacher preparation or other school professional programs in the Unit must meet the state’s minimum GPA criteria for admissions. Criteria for admissions are governed by Florida’s Board of Education (BOE) rule and statute, 6A-5.066 and F.S. 1004.04(4)(b)(1)(2), respectively. The aforementioned state statute and rule not only determine minimum admission criteria for applicants but also specify processes and procedures to maintain continued program approval across all institutions with initial teacher preparation programs in the State of Florida. The minimum state required GPA for admission to and exit from teacher preparation programs in the College is 2.5. Data for two academic years indicate that the average entry and exit GPAs for completers of COEHS teacher education and advanced programs exceeded the minimum set by the state. COEHS Entry and Exit Average GPA for of Teacher Education Programs and Candidates and Other School Professional Programs*Academic YearAverage Entry GPAAverage Exit GPA2014-20153.213.612013-20143.253.612012-20133.103.642011-20123.253.582010-20113.223.61Source: Teacher Education File managed by the Office of Institutional Research at UNF. The following programs were included in the calculations: Art K-12, Biology 6-12, Chemistry 6-12, Elementary Education K-6, English 6-12/ESOL, Exceptional Student Education ESOL K-12, Hearing Impaired K-12, Mathematics 6-12, MG Math/MG Science 5-9, Music K-12, PreK-Primary Education/ESOL, Physical Education K-12, Physics, Social Science 6-12, and the Educator Preparation Institute (EPI), School Leadership and Guidance and Counseling K-12.Section 8 Graduation Rates for Students Admitted and Enrolled in COEHS ProgramsSection 8 Overview: This section summarizes the graduation rate of COEHS admits during the 2010-2011 academic year. One important consideration when analyzing this table is to recognize the significant differences between the cohort sizes of the various programs of study. Of most significance is the Elementary Education program which was comprised of a cohort of 120. Approximately 91 of the 120 (76%) students originally identified as Elementary Education majors graduated from the College but not necessarily from the same major or track they started with, in this case Elementary Education. 91 of 120 (76%) graduated from the original major and track. 108 of 120 graduated from the University but not necessarily from the same college, major or track they started with, in this case, Elementary Education.64376301008126000Section 8 COEHS Graduation for a Cohort of Admits and Enrolled in the 2010-2011 LINK Excel.Sheet.12 "C:\\Users\\n00125924\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.Outlook\\GV8N1BD0\\Junior Level Retention and Graduation Rates for COEHS (2).xlsx" "Summary!R30C1:R47C9" \a \f 5 \h \* MERGEFORMAT DOECODEProgram by Major and TrackDeg.LevelCohort SizenGrad. AtUniv. Level(*)Grad. AtColl. Level(**)Grad. AtMajorLevel(***)Grad. AtTrackLevel(****)114Art Education: Art Education K-12B475%50%25%25%285Educational Leadership: School LeadershipM2576%76%72%60%287Math Education: Math 6-12B1182%64%36%36%288Science Education: Biology 6-12B10%0%0%0%289Science Education: Chemistry 6-12B367%33%0%0%297Special Education: Deaf Education+M1191%91%91%73%304Counselor Education: School CounselingM15100%100%100%100%365Middle School Education: Math and Science5-9B2100%100%100%100%387PreK-Primary EducationB771%71%57%57%398English Education: English 6-12B1984%63%47%47%424Physical Education: Physical Education K-12B8100%100%75%75%430Special Education: ESEB10100%90%60%60%430Special Education: ESEM250%50%50%0%444Elementary Education: Elementary Education K-6B12090%83%76%76% Source: Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Graduation is based on the number of students in year 1 that were retained and graduated in year 4. (*) University Level: COEHS students that graduated from UNF but not necessarily from the same college, major or track they started with.(**) College Level: Students graduated from COEHS but not necessarily from the same major or track they started with.(***) Major Level: Students graduated from COEHS but not necessarily from the same track they started with.(****)Track Level: Students retained in COEHS and in the same major and track they started with.- Current data reflects students retained and graduated in year 4 of their program of study. Students taking longer than 4 years to complete their program of study are not accounted for in this table. Section 9 Employment Retention Rates of COEHS Program CompletersProgram NameAverage number of years completers from the 2008-2009 academic year were employed over the 5 years following placementPerformance Level Score for Retention Rate metric. The performance level target points for retention rate range from one (1) to a high of four (4) and are defined in Rule 6A-5.066, FAC.Art4.20 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Music4.33 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Biology5.00 years4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.Chemistry5.00 years4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.Physics5.00 years4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.Social Science3.17 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Guidance and Counseling4.65 years4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.MG Math MG Gen. Sci.3.86 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years. PreK-/ ESOL4.35 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.English/ESOL4.33 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Phys. Ed.3.89 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Exceptional Ed./ESOL4.00 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Elementary Ed./ESOL4.25 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years.Educator Prep. Institute4.14 years3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5 years. Section 9 Overview: As evidenced above, the majority of completers from the 2008-2009 academic year have remained in the field over three years, and in some instances, up to five years. For this reason, the College of Education and Human Services at UNF was awarded high scores for graduates’ retention rates – i.e., either a “3” or a “4,” with “4” being the highest on a 4 point scale. LINK Excel.Sheet.12 "C:\\Users\\n00966454\\Documents\\APPR DATA AND DICTIONARY 2015\\Copy of 2015+APPR+Data_Prelim calcfinalscores msp.xlsx" "2015 APPR Data!R1C5:R17C5" \a \f 5 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Program_NameArtMusicMathematicsBiologyChemistryPhysicsSocial ScienceHearing ImpairedGuidance and CounselingMGMathMGGenSciPreK-/ ESOLEnglish/ESOLPEEXE/ESOLEleEd/ESOLEPI Additional Analyses:A total of 1,704 completers from the cohort groups listed below are currently employed as instructors or counselors. In an attempt to discern whether the characteristics of completers’ students varies among cohort groups, a number of analyses have been conducted. These include whether cohorts vary according to (1) the grades allocated for schools in which completers are employed; (2) the counties in which completers are teaching/counseling; (3) the percentage of males and females working in the field; (4) the types of positions assumed (i.e., social science teachers versus mathematics teachers); and, any other variable that may offer clues regarding the career trajectories of our completers. Breakdown by Cohort Group2006-2007, N = 188 2007-2008, N = 223 2008-2009, N = 243 2009-2010, N = 203 2010-2011, N = 226 2011-2012, N = 193 2012-2013, N = 222 2013-2014, N = 206 Average years of teaching experience among completers from each of the cohort groups listed below, and who are still employed as teachers:2006-2007 7 years2007-2008 6 years2008-2009 6 years2009-2010 5 years2010-2011 4 years2011-2012 4 years2012-2013 2 years2013-2014 3 yearsThose from cohort groups who graduated more recently are also those who have less experience, on average, in comparison to those who graduated in 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. This is to be expected, as the longer completers have been out in the field, the more experience they should have gained – on average. As noted above, what is interesting to evaluate, however, is whether other types of variance between each cohort group emerge. This is particularly relevant to appraise as it pertains to certain metrics, such as the average percentage of our completers’ – from each cohort group - who teach students are eligible for free and reduced lunch; the average percentage of our completers’ who teach minorities; the absolute value of completers’ who teach in specific school districts; the average percentage of completers who teach in Title I Schools; and, the percentage of male and female completers who are currently teaching, from each cohort group. If trends emerge, where recent completers from one or two cohort groups report working in a relatively large number of schools with Title I status, and completers from 2006-2008 report working in relatively few schools with Title I status, then these cohort-school associations may be due to variance in the job market from year to year or other variables among districts. Interestingly, there is/was very little variation at all among the cohort groups of completers who are still teaching.For example, please see the average percentage of our completers’ – from each cohort group - teach students are eligible for free and reduced lunch:2006-2007 53%2007-2008 54%2008-2009 52%2009-2010 52%2010-2011 55%2011-2012 55%2012-2013 55%2013-2014 56%Although the average percentage of students, taught by our completers, who are eligible for free and reduced lunch rose moderately, and the level of dispersion (i.e., standard deviation) was higher among graduates from 2012-2013 & 2013-2014, there is virtually no difference in these proportions over time. The same trend emerges when evaluating the average percentage of minorities taught by our completers from each cohort group.Average percentage of minority students in the schools where completers from each cohort group are currently employed:2006-2007 51%2007-2008 50%2008-2009 52%2009-2010 52%2010-2011 49%2011-2012 52%2012-2013 55%2013-2014 56%As noted, the districts who currently employ completers from each cohort group are reported. These data are as follows:2006-2007: 16% work in Clay County; 55% work in Duval County; 5% work in Nassau County; and, 9% work in St. John’s County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-3 teachers from this cohort group.2007-2008: 18% work in Clay County; 52% work in Duval County; 6% work in Nassau County; and, 7% work in St. John’s County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2008-2009: 9% work in Clay County; 54% work in Duval County; 4% work in Nassau County; and, 10% work in St. John’s County. Three percent work for the Florida Virtual School and two percent work for Orange County; the remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2009-2010: 9% work in Clay County; 54% work in Duval County; 4% work in Nassau County; and 11% work in St. John’s County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2010-2011: 13% work in Clay County; 50% work in Duval County; 8% work in Nassau County; 8% work in St. John’s County; and, 2% work in Baker County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2011-2012: 9% work in Clay County; 42% work in Duval County; 6% work in Nassau County; 5% work in St. John’s County; 2% work in Hillsborough County; and, 2% work in Orange County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2012-2013: 14% work in Clay County; 56% work in Duval County; 9% work in St. John’s County; 3% work in Orange County; 2% work in Nassau County; and, 2% work in Hillsborough County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.2013-2014: 7% work in Clay County; 63% work in Duval County; 8% work in St. John’s County; and, 3% work in Orange County. The remaining counties listed only employ 1-4 teachers from this cohort group.In summary, the percentage of completers from the 2013-2014 cohort group working in Duval County was higher than the percentage of completers from the six, previous cohorts. Percentage of Completers who Report Working in Title I Schools:2006-2007: 42% in Title I Schools2007-2008: 43% in Title I Schools2008-2009: 38% in Title I Schools2009-2010: 38% in Title I Schools2010-2011: 50% in Title I Schools2011-2012: 44% in Title I Schools2012-2013: 44% in Title I Schools2013-2014: 52% in Title I SchoolsAgain, there is some variation in the percentage of completers from each cohort group who report working in Title I Schools, however, this variance is not very large and does not follow a clear pattern. This suggests that the date of graduation, amount of experience, and employment in a school with Title I status are not strongly associated.School Grade:2006-2007: 48% A or B; 32% C; 20% D or F 2007-2008: 51% A or B; 31% C; 18% D or F 2008-2009:48% A or B; 31% C; 21% D or F 2009-2010: 53% A or B; 23% C; 24% D or F 2010-2011: 51% A or B; 21% C; 28% D or F 2011-2012: 45% A or B; 33% C; 22% D or F 2012-2013: 52% A or B; 30% C; 32% D or F 2013-2014: 36% A or B; 32% C; 32% D or F Time of graduation may be associated, albeit modestly, with employment in schools that have received particular grades. As noted above, from 2006-2012, approximately half of the schools where in which our completers were teaching, received a grade of “A” or “B.” In 2012-2013, a slightly larger percentage – relatively speaking – of completers were teaching in schools that received grades of “D” or “F.” This occurred again among completers who graduated in 2013-2014.Gender Breakdown: Percentage of male and female completers from each cohort who have been continuously employed. 2006-2007: 87% are female2007-2008: 90% are female2008-2009: 87% female2009-2010: 86% female2010-2011: 87% female2011-2012: 89% female2012-2013: 83% female2013-2014: 83% femaleThe percentage of male teachers in the field is higher among cohort groups 2012-2013 and 2013-2014; reasons for this are difficult to determine, in part, due to the relatively low variance in the percentage of males and females working as teachers from multiple cohort groups.Enumerated below are the percentage of jobs most frequently assumed by completers from each cohort group.2006-2007, 28% are behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 72% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)8%Coach (math or reading)2%Language Arts Teacher3%Math Teacher6%Physical Ed Teacher2%Science Teacher3%Social Studies Teacher4%Kindergarten8%1st grade9%2nd grade10%3rd grade13%4th grade5%5th grade7%6th grade2%2007-2008: 24% are behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 76% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)8%Coach (math or reading)1%Language Arts Teacher6%Math Teacher3%Physical Ed Teacher1%Science Teacher4%Social Studies Teacher4%K7%1st9%2nd6%3rd11%4th9%5th7%6th0%2008-2009: 23% were behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 77% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)7%Coach (math or reading)2%Language Arts Teacher6%Math Teacher7%Physical Ed Teacher2%Science Teacher3%Social Studies Teacher6%K6%1st7%2nd9%3rd9%4th6%5th7%6th0%2009-2010: 23% were behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 77% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)5%Coach (math or reading)1%Language Arts Teacher8%Math Teacher3%Physical Ed Teacher1%Science Teacher5%Social Studies Teacher3%K9%1st9%2nd13%3rd9%4th6%5th5%6th0%2010-2011: 17% are behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 83% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)6%Coach (math or reading)1%Language Arts Teacher5%Math Teacher6%Physical Ed Teacher1%Science Teacher1%Social Studies Teacher4%K11%1st11%2nd10%3rd7%4th11%5th6%6th3%2011-2012: 23% were behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 77% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)4%Coach (math or reading)2%Language Arts Teacher4%Math Teacher7%Physical Ed Teacher3%Science Teacher1%Social Studies Teacher5%K7%1st10%2nd8%3rd12%4th9%5th6%6th0%2012-2013: 21% are behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 79% assume the positions below.Job Title% of peopleCounselor (all levels)5 %Coach (math or reading)0 %Language Arts Teacher4 %Math Teacher5 %Physical Ed Teacher3 %Science Teacher3%Social Studies Teacher5 %K11 %1st9 %2nd7 %3rd11 %4th8 %5th8 %6th0 %The percentages listed above do not show any trends which suggest that large proportions of completers assume specific positions 1-3 years post-graduation and large proportions of completers assume a different set of specific positions 4-7 years post-graduation. In addition, the percentage of minority students who are currently being taught by completers from multiple cohort groups; the percentage of Title I schools that employ completers from multiple cohort groups; the types of positions assumed by completers from multiple cohort groups; and, the percentage of A/B versus D/F schools that employ completers from multiple cohort groups has remained remarkably stable. Overview Section 10: Value-Added: VAM Scores, 2013-2014Value-Added: Average 2013-2014 VAM score for P-12 students of 2010-2011 through 2012-2013 LINK Excel.Sheet.12 "C:\\Users\\n00966454\\Documents\\APPR DATA AND DICTIONARY 2015\\Copy of 2015+APPR+Data_Prelim calcfinalscores msp.xlsx" "2015 APPR Data!R1C5:R17C44" \a \f 4 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Program_NameAverage 2013-2014 VAM score for P-12 students of 2010-2011 through 2012-2013 in-field program completers from Math, Reading or All (Elementary Education) in line with the completers' institution/program's Subject Type. The institution/program's average VAM score, minus the 95% confidence intervalThe institution/program's average VAM score, plus the 95% confidence intervalStudent Performance on Statewide Assessments metric score. The performance level target points for Student Performance on Statewide Assessments range from one (1) to four (4) and are defined in Rule 6A-5.066, FAC.Art------NAMusic------NAMathematics-0.257-0.5580.0453.0Biology------NAChemistry------NAPhysics------NASocial Science------NAHearing Impaired------NAGuidance and Counseling------NAMGMathMGGenSci0.285-0.2200.7903.0PreK-/ ESOL------NAEnglish/ESOL-0.168-0.4240.0893.0PE------NAEXE/ESOL------NAEleEd/ESOL-0.046-0.1190.0283.0EPI ------NAA more granular view of the VAM Scores from three, earlier cohort groups – 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 – are presented below. Of these 180 VAM scores, 86 were positive – or slightly above zero [not even a full point] --, and 94 were negative – or slightly below zero [again, tenths of a point). The standard error for each completer’s score was often greater than his/her VAM score, making it unclear if each his/her VAM score is actually above or below zero. Thus, although it would be helpful to identify trends, such as those listed below – e.g., 9% of positive VAM scores were in math and 33% of negative VAM scores were in math, among members of these three cohort groups – the standard error washes out even marginal differences. For this reason, these data are organized and cleaned for reporting purposes.86 positive (however, due to standard error, many of these scores – in actuality – could be positive or negative)of the positive VAM scores, 9% were in mathof the positive VAM scores, 14% were in math and reading combinedof the positive VAM scores, 70% were in reading94 negative (however, due to standard error, many of these scores – in actuality – could be positive or negative)of the negative VAM scores, 36% were in readingof the negative VAM scores, 31% were in math and reading combinedof the negative VAM scores, 33% were in mathCOMPLETION_YEAR?Program Completer's Average VAM score of P - 12 grade students in Math, Reading and/or Combined subjectsStandard Error of Program Completer's Average VAM score 2010-11math +.37.277082010-11math -.46.264842010-11math -.29.128962010-11reading +1.58.386832010-11reading +.14.30932010-11math -.32.3522010-11math -.32.135192010-11math -.25.196252010-11math -.25.288242010-11reading +.04.26632010-11math +.94.313192010-11math -.14.185532010-11math +.32.196432010-11math -.07.134072010-11reading -.35.270262010-11reading -.46.162612010-11reading +.11.192532010-11reading +.13.229022010-11reading + .01.116322010-11reading -.42.221382010-11reading -.66.55072010-11reading -.02.191032010-11mathread -.02.223292010-11math +1.09.280742010-11mathread -.37.410992010-11math +.47.27372010-11math -1.00.299822010-11math - .70.267052010-11mathread +.28.212222010-11mathread -.15.214152010-11math +.84.258822010-11mathread -.62.154782010-11mathread -.22.129332010-11read -.74.462652010-11read -.46.123672010-11mathread +.22.136872010-11math +.50.22962010-11read +.02.33562010-11math +.01.147432010-11mathread -.16.215442010-11read -.27.119822010-11read -.17.13362010-11mathread -.06.173062010-11read -.06.139512010-11read -.16.197752010-11mathread +.1056.127122010-11math -.58.140812010-11read -.29.136162010-11math -.33.264142010-11math +.54.125452010-11math +.63.131642010-11read +.10.133572010-11math +.26.123752010-11mathread -.13.214742010-11mathread -.57.237872010-11read +.36.132062010-11mathread +.35.117692010-11read +.27.126722010-11mathread +.17.212012010-11read -.15.228112010-11mathread +.20.171812010-11mathread +.33.203732010-11read +.49.177372010-11read -.26.147542010-11read -.88.127242010-11read +.08.171322010-11mathread +.38.138922010-11math +.36.249642010-11read +.39.131162010-11math -.29.130312010-11mathread -.13.127632010-11math +.17.12662010-11read +.22.40032010-11read -.08.12062Average 2010-2011+0.010+0.212011-12read +.17.442042011-12read -.005.325692011-12read +.37.629772011-12math +.19.12122011-12read +.17.25072011-12mathread -.22.21762011-12mathread +.36.127172011-12mathread -.29.129212011-12math -.79.209742011-12read -1.05.427312011-12mathread +.52.224692011-12math +.26.216042011-12read +.28.23382011-12read +.16.274382011-12read -.25.11632011-12mathread -.18.389922011-12mathread +.23.206352011-12mathread +.07.188622011-12mathread -.21.252432011-12mathread +.22.28052011-12math -.04.170032011-12read -.55.513962011-12read -1.05.46922011-12read +.710.498832011-12mathread -.005.121892011-12math -.41.204242011-12mathread +.13.434412011-12math +.25.124862011-12math -.36.279782011-12math +.18.202072011-12mathread +.15.141762011-12mathread +.47.131332011-12math -1.2.253892011-12mathread +.16.117792011-12math -.21.293072011-12mathread +.23.144152011-12mathread -.20.209462011-12mathread -.39.123132011-12read +.12.583072011-12math +.19.123912011-12math -.25.684442011-12mathread -.18.122372011-12math -.17.128782011-12math -.15.117752011-12read -.05.145252011-12read -.04.113322011-12read -.26.122252011-12math -.26.134182011-12math -38.16158Average 2011-2012-0.0734432650.2581746812012-13read -.20.294282012-13math +.05.330952012-13read +.59.127492012-13read +.04.4362012-13math +.79.273572012-13math -.50.271542012-13math +.21.121072012-13math -.28.108282012-13mathread +.02.251242012-13math +.05.167412012-13read -1.15.443432012-13read -.33.340152012-13read -.05.178222012-13read -.09.175432012-13read +.20.319262012-13read +.72.327022012-13read -.1.5.496422012-13read +.19.31582012-13read -.21.150372012-13math +.49.43922012-13mathread -.005.205712012-13mathread -.1.5.412822012-13read +.27.486852012-13mathread -.22.215492012-13mathread +.66.270392012-13mathread -.64.226052012-13mathread -.23.116742012-13mathread -.05.220072012-13mathread -.25.12042012-13read -.009.144332012-13math -.10.14762012-13math -.20.192992012-13math +.29.115282012-13mathread -.41.311782012-13math -1.2.192412012-13read +.05.115412012-13read +.04.150142012-13read -.003.213172012-13mathread -.34.129942012-13read +.01.120672012-13mathread +.43.213322012-13math -.66.13712012-13mathread +.15.124812012-13read +.07.135332012-13read +.06.210962012-13mathread -.07.172892012-13read +.38.16932012-13math +.58.447512012-13read -.21.137382012-13read +.04.134632012-13mathread -.24.217822012-13mathread +.07.183682012-13read +.14.657872012-13mathread -.14.330812012-13mathread +.09.236662012-13read +.25.14362012-13read +.06.42459Average 2012-2013-0.0645796490.241291754Appendix AThe VAM model used in the State of Florida is a “covariate adjustment model,” which takes students’ observed characteristics (as covariates) and prior test scores to compute “a conditional expectation for student i based on how other students with similar” -- i.e., equivalent school, classroom and student – “measured characteristics and prior test scores have performed, given the predicted value, rti=yti-yti” (this information comes from Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) 2.0 Value-Added Model Technical Report 2012-13 November 2013 [authors request the report not be cited]). Although this model is far more complex than that which is being described here, in essence, data from the VAM model indicates whether or not the students’ -- of specific teachers -- scores are higher, lower or the same as their actual scores on the FCAT 2.0 in Reading and Math. (Again, conditional expectations or the “predicted score” is derived, in part, by computing a weighted mean of the student level residuals among students with “similar” characteristics.) Additionally, the magnitude of this difference is indicated by the VAM model as well, with negative scores representative of students’ standardized test performance, on average, “x” number of points below that which the model predicted; a score of zero equivalent to that which the model predicted; and, positive scores representative of students’ standardized test performance, on average, “x” number of points above that which the model predicted. For example, a VAM score of +10.0 in Reading indicates that the students’ performance for a specific teacher in Reading was, on average, 10 points more than what the model predicted for students whose metrics (characteristics and prior test scores) are similar.Conclusion:There is much to celebrate regarding the percentage of graduates from the COEHS who were hired one year post-graduation; their retention in the field; their self-reported competencies as first-year teachers; their supervisors/administrators confirmation of their competencies; and, their students’ outcomes -- as per student learning growth formulas. Additionally, the percentage of graduates who teach children in less-affluent contexts is likely a reflection of the training they received as pre-service teachers in the COEHS, which is grounded a commitment to equity and social justice. These data, as well as the historical trends cited, will inform the continuous improvement of these programs, positioning UNF as a proud leader in the fields of administrative, counselor and educator training. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download