University of North Florida€¦ · Web viewPass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) by Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015 Section 3 University

College of Education and Human Services (COEHS)

Effectiveness and Accountability Report: 20152009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014

An Executive Summary

Megan Schramm-Possinger, Director of Assessment and Research2009-2012 Data and Corresponding Text Provided by Claire Torres-Lugo

“Educating Professionals Who Impact the Lives of Children and Adults”

Index

Section 1 COEHS Summary Data Florida Licensure Exam: 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015

Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) by Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015

Section 3 University of North Florida’s State Report Card-Title II Report: Data withState Comparisons

Section 4 COEHS Program Completers’ First Year Employment Data (2009-2010 thru 2011-2013)

Section 5 Satisfaction Survey Results for all COEHS Teacher Education Programs Completers (2012-2013)

Section 6 Employers’ Satisfaction of Beginning Teachers Graduated from COEHS in 2009-2010, 2010-2011, & 2012- 2013

Section 7 COEHS Average Entrance and Exit GPAs for Candidates and Completers of Teacher Preparation Programs and Advanced Programs 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, & 2013-2014

Section 8 Graduation Rates for Students Admitted and Enrolled in COEHS Programs -pending

Section 9 Employment Retention Rates of COEHS Program Completers

Section 10 P-12 Impact Data: Florida’s Value-Added Model (VAM) Scores

Introduction

The 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 [email protected]

Sincerely,

Marsha LupiInterim Dean, College of Education and Human Services

2 | P a g eUpdated April 2015

Section 1 COEHS Summary Data for the Florida Licensure Exam: 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015

Section 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 Exam

2014-2015 238 238 238 100

2013-2014 278 278 278 100

2012-2013 304 304 302 100

2011-2012 265 265 265 100

2010-2011 337 337 337 100

2009-2010 332 332 332 100Source: 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 Exam

2014-2015 38 38 38 100

2013-2014 29 29 29 100

2012-2013 30 30 30 100

2011-2012 42 42 42 100

2010-2011 43 43 43 100

2009-2010 48 48 48 100

Source: 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 2014-2015

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs-Title II

Name of Licensure Test (Content)

# of Test Takers

% Passing State Licensure Test

Art K-12 Art K-12 3 100%

Biology 6-12 Biology 6-12 3 100%

Chemistry 6-12 Chemistry 6-12

Elementary Education/ESOL K-6 Elementary Education K-6 105 100%

English 6-12/ESOL English 6-12 4 100%

Exceptional Student EducationESOLK-12

Exceptional Student Education K-12 (Bachelor and Master’s Level)

18 100%

Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-12(Master’s Level)

3 100%

Mathematics 6-12 Mathematics 6-12 10 100%

MG Math/MG Science 5-9 Middle Grades General Science 5-9 4 100%

Music K-12 Music K-12 5 100%

PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr. 3

Prekindergarten/Primary PK-3 10 100%

Physical Education K-12 Physical Education 5 100%

Physics Physics 6-12

Social Science 6-12 Social Science 6-12 11 100%

Educator Preparation Institute Professional Education 57 100%

Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial Preparation Title II Programs

238 100%

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


Educational Leadership Florida Educational Leadership Exam 13 100%

Guidance and Counseling PK-12 Guidance and Counseling PK-12 25 100%

Subtotal Pass Rate for Non-Title II Programs

38 100%

Total Unit Overall Pass Rate 276 100%Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports).

COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2013-2014




# of Test Takers


Art K-12 Art K-12 2 100%

Biology 6-12 Biology 6-12






24 100%


5 100%











278 100%



# of Test Takers





29 100%


Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2012-2013




# of Test Takers


Art K-12 Art K-12 3 100%







20 100%


10 100%











289 100%



# of Test Takers





30 100%


Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012




# of Test Takers


Art K-12 Art K-12 3 100%







21 100%

Hearing Impaired K-12Hearing Impaired K-12 4 100%











265 100%



# of Test Takers





42 100%


Section 3, University of North Florida’s State Report Card-Title II Report:


Data with State Comparisons

Section 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 2014-2015

Number Taking

Test

Number Passing

Test

COEHS Pass Rate

StatewideAverage Pass

*Rate

Basic Skills or General Knowledge Test (GK)

587 566 96% Pending %

Professional Education Test271 245 90% Pending %

One Subject Area Exam 271 220 81% Pending %

Second Subject Area Exam 43 31 74% Pending %

FTCE (All Sections) 1172 1,062 91% Pending %

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 will be available by late April/early May of 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 2013-2014

The Average of 2011-2012 Program Completers Who Were

Employed in Either the 2012-2013 or 2013-2014 Academic Years

Art 23 33.3% (of 23) = 7.66

Music 16 60.0% (of 16) = 9.60

Mathematics 38 100.0% (of 38) = 38

Social Science 113 66.7% (of 113) = 75.37

Hearing Impaired 36 25.0% (of 36) = 9Guidance and

Counseling113 87.5% (of 113) = 75.37

MG Math MG Gen. Sci. 56 80.0% (of 56) = 44.80PreK-/ ESOL 170 66.7% (of 170) = 113.39

English/ESOL 72 66.7% (of 72) = 48.02PE 60 72.7% (of 60)= 43.62

EXE/ESOL 117 76.2% (of 117) = 89.15

Ele. Ed./ESOL 990 69.6% (of 990) = 689.04

EPI 203 57.9% (of 203) = 117.54

Total: 2,007Average: Total (1367

employed/2007 completers) = 68%


Section 5 Satisfaction Survey Results for all COEHS Teacher Education Program Completers (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).

# Answer Response %1 0-1 year 10 29%2 1-2 years 17 50%3 2-3 years 0 0%

4more than 3 years

7 21%

Total 34 100%


2. What is your employment status for next year?

# Answer Response %

1Contract Signed

12 35%

2Contract Expected

15 44%

3Contract not Renewed

0 0%

4Teaching in Another District

4 12%

5Teaching in Another State

2 6%

6 Unsure 1 3%

7Teaching at a Private School

0 0%

8Leaving Teaching

0 0%

Total 34 100%

3. Do you teach in…?

# Answer Response %

10An urban school

13 38%

11A suburban school

12 35%

12A rural school

9 26%

Total 34 100%


4. Does your school have…?

# Answer Response %

1

Over 50% of Students on Free or Reduced Lunch

22 65%

2Heavy parental participation

13 38%

5. What grade do you teach?

# Answer Response %1 Pre K-First 1 3%2 K-6th 13 38%3 6th-8th 6 18%

4Secondary Level (9-12)

14 41%

Total 34 100%


6. Overall, how effective do you feel as a teacher?

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

11 32%

2 Effective 20 59%3 Developing 3 9%4 Unsatisfactory 0 0%

Total 34 100%

Statistic ValueMean 1.76Variance 0.37Standard Deviation 0.61Total Responses 34


How 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

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

14 41%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Need Improvement

2 6%

4 Unsatisfactory 0 0%Total 34 100%



8. Design instruction for students to achieve mastery

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

12 35%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

4 12%




9. Align instruction with state-adopted standards at the appropriate level of rigor

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

10 29%

2 Effective 21 62%

3Need Improvement

2 6%




10. Select appropriate formative assessments to monitor learning

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

12 35%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




11. Use diagnostic student data to plan lessons

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

10 29%

2 Effective 16 47%

3Needs Improvement

8 24%




12. Develop developmentally appropriate learning experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety of applicable skills and competencies

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

4 12%




13. Organize and manage the resources of time and space to support student learning

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




14. Manage individual and class behaviors through a well-planned management system

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

9 26%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

7 21%




15. Convey high expectations to all students

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

15 44%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

2 6%




16. Respect students' differing needs and diversity

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

19 56%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

0 0%




17. Model clear written communication skills

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

21 62%

2 Effective 12 35%

3Needs Improvement

1 3%




18. How effective was your teacher preparation program in preparing you to do the following:

...deliver engaging and challenging lessons

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




19. Maintain a climate of openness, fairness and support

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

20 59%

2 Effective 14 41%

3Needs Improvement

0 0%




20. Model clear oral communication skills

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

18 53%

2 Effective 13 38%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




21. Develop a climate that fosters inquiry

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

9 26%

2 Effective 22 65%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




22. Integrate appropriate and available information technologies that foster student inquiry

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

14 41%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




23. Integrate appropriate and available communication technologies

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 41%

2 Effective 15 47%

3Needs Improvement

2 6%




24. Utilize appropriate assistive technologies that enable students to achieve their educational goals

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

12 39%

2 Effective 12 39%

3Needs Improvement

6 19%




25. Adapt the learning environment to accommodate the differing needs and diversity of students

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

17 50%

2 Effective 14 41%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




26. ...teach literacy strategies across the curriculum through explicit instruction

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

12 35%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




27. ...identify gaps in students' subject matter knowledge

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

10 29%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




28. ...modify instruction to respond to student needs (e.g., gaps in knowledge, preconceptions or misconceptions)

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

12 35%

2 Effective 19 56%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




29. ...relate and integrate the subject matter with other disciplines and/or life experiences

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

16 47%

2 Effective 16 47%

3Needs Improvement

2 6%




30. ...employ higher-order questioning techniques

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




31. ...teach for student understanding using varied and appropriate strategies and resources

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

14 41%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




32. ...differentiate instruction based on an assessment of differing needs and diversity of students

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




33. ...encourage and provide immediate and specific feedback to promote student achievement

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

16 47%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

0 0%




34. ...utilize student feedback to monitor and support instructional needs and to adjust instruction

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

16 47%

2 Effective 14 41%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




35. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments and measures to inform instruction based on those needs

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

17 50%

2 Effective 11 32%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




36. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments and measures to drive the learning process

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

11 32%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

5 15%




37. ...design and align formative assessments that match learning objectives

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 16 47%

3Needs Improvement

4 12%




38. ...design and align summative assessments to determine mastery of learning objectives

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

13 38%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

6 18%




39. ...use a variety of assessment tools to monitor student progress

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

14 41%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




40. ...share the outcomes and implication of student assessment data with the student and his/her parents or caregivers

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

10 29%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

4 12%




41. ...modify textbook-based or "homegrown" assessments and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and varying skill levels

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

9 26%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

7 21%




42. ...use technology and/or software to organize and integrate assessment data

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

11 32%

2 Effective 18 53%

3Needs Improvement

2 6%




43. ...design professional goals based upon your students' instructional needs

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

11 32%

2 Effective 17 50%

3Needs Improvement

4 12%




44. ...use research to improve instruction and student achievement

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

10 29%

2 Effective 21 62%

3Needs Improvement

2 6%




45. ...collaborate with colleagues to evaluate learning outcomes and modify instruction/curricula accordingly

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

16 47%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Needs Improvement

3 9%




46. Engage in ongoing reflective practice

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

18 53%

2 Effective 15 44%

3Need Improvement

1 3%




47. Accept constructive feedback

# Answer Response %

1Highly Effective

22 65%

2 Effective 12 35%

3Need Improvement

0 0%




As 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, 2013-2014

Section 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 School County TotalBaker County High School Baker County 1Westside Elementary Baker County 1Bradford High School Bradford County 1Imagine Schools at West Melbourne Brevard County 1Clay Hill Elementary Clay County 1Lake Asbury Elementary Clay County 1Oakleaf Junior High School Clay County 1Orange Park High School Clay County 1Alimacani Elementary School Duval County 1Andrew Jackson High School Duval County 2Atlantic Beach Elementary Duval County 1Atlantic Coast High School Duval County 1Carter G. Woodson Elementary School Duval County 1Crystal Springs Elementary Duval County 1Jacksonville Heights Elementary Duval County 1Kings Trail Elementary Duval County 1KIPP VOICE Elementary (part of KIPP Jacksonville) Duval County 1Mandarin High School Duval County 1Neptune Beach Elementary Duval County 1Oceanway Elementary Duval County 1Reynolds Lane Elementary Duval County 2Sadie Tillis Elementary School Duval County 1West Jacksonville Elementary Duval County 1Doby Elementary Hillsborough County 1Callahan Intermediate School Nassau County 1Yulee Middle School Nassau County 1

Pasco County 1Interlachen Elementary Putnam County 1Mellon Putnam County 1Total 31


Question 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 lunch.

Composition of Schools Taught in

N Percentages of N=31

1 Urban 10 32%2 Suburban 14 45%3 Rural 7 23%Total 31 100%

4 Elementary School 21 68%5 Middle School 3 10%6 High School 7 23%Total 31 101%

7 Charter School 2 9%8 50% or more students on Free or Reduced Lunch

5 23%

9 75% or more students on Free or Reduced Lunch

15 68%

Total 22 100%


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 teachers

Similar to other beginning teachers

Stronger than other beginning teachers

Much Stronger than other beginning teachers

...use assessment strategies (traditional and alternative) to diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses?

0 1 15 17 0

...use/develop assessments to guide instruction?

1 0 18 14 0

...use effective communication techniques with students and all other stakeholders?

0 2 16 10 5

...engage in continuous improvement for self and school?

0 3 14 11 4

...use pedagogical techniques and strategies to foster students' critical, creative, and evaluative thinking?

1 1 15 14 1

...use teaching and learning strategies that reflect students' cultural, learning styles, special needs and socioeconomic backgrounds?

0 3 15 12 2

...adhere to the code of ethics and principles of professional conduct of the education profession?

0 0 16 10 6

...effectively manage the classroom?

2 1 15 9 5

...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?

0 3 10 16 4

...demonstrate knowledge and conceptual understanding of the subject matter?

0 1 13 17 2


...create an engaging, active learning environment where students work well collaboratively, interact appropriately, and are motivated to learn?

0 3 11 16 3

# Question

Much Weaker than other beginning teachers

Slightly weaker than other beginning teachers

Similar to other beginning teachers

Stronger than other beginning teachers

Much Stronger than other beginning teachers

...plan and implement instruction for a variety of learners/learning environments?

0 2 13 15 3

...demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge?

0 1 19 10 3

...work with education professionals, parents and other stakeholders in the continuous improvement of the educational experiences of students?

0 1 18 11 3

...use appropriate technological tools to facilitate students learning?

0 0 12 18 3

...attend events held by the school held outside of the school day?

0 2 15 13 3

...write and speak in a logical and understandable manner with appropriate grammar?

0 0 13 17 3

...recognize signs of students’ difficulty with reading and computational processes?

0 2 15 15 1

...devise strategies to fortify the reading and computational process of students who are still building these skills?

1 0 20 10 1


...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?

...effectively manage the classroom?

...adhere to the code of ethics and principles of professional conduct of the education profession?

...use teaching and learning strategies that reflect students' cultural, learning styles, special needs and socioeconomic backgrounds?

...use pedagogical techniques and strategies to foster students' critical, creative, and evaluative thinking?

...engage in continuous improvement for self and school?

...use effective communication techniques with students and all other stakeholders?

...use/develop assessments to guide instruction?

...use assessment strategies (traditional and alternative) to diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

To what degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to other beginning teachers in their ability to:

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


...devise strategies to fortify the reading and computational process of students who are still building these skills?

...recognize signs of students’ difficulty with reading and computational processes?

...write and speak in a logical and understandable manner with appropriate grammar?

...attend events held by the school held outside of the school day?

...use appropriate technological tools to facilitate students learning?

...work with education professionals, parents and other stakeholders in the continuous improvement of the educational experiences of students?

...demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge?

...plan and implement instruction for a variety of learners/learning environments?

...create an engaging, active learning environment where students work well collaboratively, interact appropriately, and are motivated to learn?

...demonstrate knowledge and conceptual understanding of the subject matter?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

To what degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to other beginning teachers in their ability:

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


Question 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.

Strengths Frequency PercentagesTeam Player (Including strong work ethic; in and out of classroom; with all stakeholders)

6 10%

Professional Knowledge● basic/general 2● pedagogical content/pedagogy 3● eruditeness 1● reading and ESOL/ELL strategies 2● current teaching practices 1● data 1● small groups 1● implementation and intervention of

strategies 1● Florida standards 1● ESE requirement 1

14 23%

Professional Skills● technology/computer/doc ion 3● organization 1● approach to teaching 1● many/necessary skills 2● communication – oral and written 3

10 16%

Classroom Management 4 6%Lesson Planning(Including engaging activities)

3 5%

Willingness to Learn for Professional Growth ● desire for 2● willingness to 4● receptive to feedback 3

9 15%

Personal Attributes● confident, high energy, motivated, committed,

determined, dedicated, hard worker, professionalism, engaging for students 9 (1 each)

● positive, flexible 4 (2 each)

13 21%

Other:● personal and professional experiences 2● realistic expectations 1

3 5%

Total

62 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 years

Frequency Percentage

0-1 1 4%1 2 8%1-5 1 4%2 2 8%3 5 19%4 2 8%5 27%5+ 1 4%6 1 4%10 2 8%10+ 1 4%12 1 4%Total N=26 100%

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 2013-2014

Section 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 Year Average Entry GPA Average Exit GPA

2014-2015 3.21 3.61

2013-2014 3.25 3.61

2012-2013 3.10 3.64

2011-20123.25 3.58

2010-20113.22 3.61

Source: 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 Programs

Section 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.


Section 8 COEHS Graduation for a Cohort of Admits and Enrolled in the 2010-2011DOE

CODE

Program by Major and Track

Deg.

Level

Cohort Size

n

Grad. At

Univ. Level(*)

Grad. At

Coll. Level(**)

Grad. At

Major

Level

(***)

Grad. At

Track

Level

(****)

114Art Education: Art Education K-12 B 4 75% 50% 25% 25%

285Educational Leadership: School Leadership

M 25 76% 76% 72% 60%

287Math Education: Math 6-12 B 11 82% 64% 36% 36%

288Science Education: Biology 6-12 B 1 0% 0% 0% 0%

289Science Education: Chemistry 6-12 B 3 67% 33% 0% 0%

297Special Education: Deaf Education+ M 11 91% 91% 91% 73%

304Counselor Education: School Counseling M 15 100% 100% 100% 100%

365

Middle School Education: Math and Science

5-9

B 2 100% 100% 100% 100%

387PreK-Primary Education B 7 71% 71% 57% 57%

398English Education: English 6-12 B 19 84% 63% 47% 47%

424Physical Education: Physical Education K-12

B 8 100% 100% 75% 75%

430 Special Education: ESE B 10 100% 90% 60% 60%

430 Special Education: ESE M 2 50% 50% 50% 0%

444Elementary Education: Elementary Education K-6

B 120 90% 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 Completers1

Program Name Average number of years completers from the 2008-2009 academic year were employed over the 5 years following placement

Performance 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.

Art 4.20 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.

Music 4.33 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.

Biology 5.00 years 4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.

Chemistry 5.00 years 4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.

Physics 5.00 years 4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.

Social Science 3.17 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 Counseling 4.65 years 4.0 = 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.

1 “Rule 6A-5.066, Florida Administrative Code, defines “Retention rate” as the average number of years that program completers are employed in a full-time or part-time instructional position in a Florida public school district at any point each year in a five-year period following initial employment in either of the two (2) subsequent academic years following program completion. Program completers employed in a private or out-of-state p-12 school their first or second year following program completion are also included in the calculation if data are reported by the program and have been verified. If a program provides documentation of a program completer’s death or disability, the number of program completers included in the calculation will be adjusted.”


PreK-/ ESOL 4.35 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/ESOL 4.33 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./ESOL 4.00 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./ESOL 4.25 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. Institute 4.14 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.

Program_Name

Art

Music

Mathematics


Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Social Science

Hearing Impaired

Guidance and

Counseling

MGMathMGGenS

ci

PreK-/ ESOL

English/ESOL

PE

EXE/ESOL

EleEd/ESOL

EPI

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 years

Those 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 Schools

Again, 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% female

The 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 people


Counselor (all levels) 8%

Coach (math or reading) 2%

Language Arts Teacher 3%

Math Teacher 6%Physical Ed

Teacher 2%Science Teacher 3%

Social Studies Teacher 4%

Kindergarten 8%1st grade 9%2nd grade 10%3rd grade 13%4th grade 5%5th grade 7%6th grade 2%

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 Teacher

6%


Teacher1%

Science Teacher 4%Social Studies

Teacher4%

K 7%1st 9%2nd 6%3rd 11%4th 9%


5th 7%6th 0%

2008-2009: 23% were behavioral specialists, learning resource specialists, instructional trainers, and other – relatively speaking -- infrequently assumed positions; 77% assume the positions below.


levels)7%


2%


6%


Teacher2%


Teacher6%

K 6%


1st 7%2nd 9%3rd 9%4th 6%5th 7%6th 0%



levels)5%


1%


8%


Teacher1%


Teacher3%


K 9%1st 9%2nd 13%3rd 9%4th 6%5th 5%6th 0%



levels)6%


1%


5%


Teacher1%


Teacher4%

K 11%


1st 11%2nd 10%3rd 7%4th 11%5th 6%6th 3%



levels)4%


2%


4%


Teacher3%


Teacher5%

K 7%1st 10%


2nd 8%3rd 12%4th 9%5th 6%6th 0%



levels)5 %


0 %


4 %

Math Teacher 5 %Physical Ed

Teacher3 %


Teacher5 %

K 11 %


1st 9 %2nd 7 %3rd 11 %4th 8 %5th 8 %6th 0 %

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, 2013-2014

Value-Added: Average 2013-2014 VAM score for P-12 students of 2010-2011 through 2012-2013

Program_Name Average 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 interval

The institution/program's average VAM score, plus the 95% confidence interval

Student 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

-- -- -- NA79 | P a g e

Updated April 2015

Music

-- -- -- NAMathematics

-0.257 -0.558 0.045 3.0Biology

-- -- -- NAChemistry

-- -- -- NAPhysics

-- -- -- NASocial Science

-- -- -- NAHearing Impaired

-- -- -- NAGuidance and Counseling -- -- -- NAMGMathMGGenSci

0.285 -0.220 0.790 3.0PreK-/ ESOL

-- -- -- NAEnglish/ESOL

-0.168 -0.424 0.089 3.0PE

-- -- -- NAEXE/ESOL

-- -- -- NAEleEd/ESOL

-0.046 -0.119 0.028 3.0EPI

-- -- -- NA

A 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 reading

94 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 math

COMPLETION_YEAR Program Completer's Average VAM score of P - 12 grade students in Math, Reading and/or Combined subjects

Standard Error of Program Completer's Average VAM score

2010-11 math +.37 .277082010-11 math -.46 .264842010-11 math -.29 .128962010-11 reading +1.58 .386832010-11 reading +.14 .30932010-11 math -.32 .3522010-11 math -.32 .135192010-11 math -.25 .196252010-11 math -.25 .288242010-11 reading +.04 .26632010-11 math +.94 .313192010-11 math -.14 .185532010-11 math +.32 .196432010-11 math -.07 .134072010-11 reading -.35 .270262010-11 reading -.46 .162612010-11 reading +.11 .192532010-11 reading +.13 .229022010-11 reading + .01 .116322010-11 reading -.42 .221382010-11 reading -.66 .55072010-11 reading -.02 .191032010-11 mathread -.02 .223292010-11 math +1.09 .28074


2010-11 mathread -.37 .410992010-11 math +.47 .27372010-11 math -1.00 .299822010-11 math - .70 .267052010-11 mathread +.28 .212222010-11 mathread -.15 .214152010-11 math +.84 .258822010-11 mathread -.62 .154782010-11 mathread -.22 .129332010-11 read -.74 .462652010-11 read -.46 .123672010-11 mathread +.22 .136872010-11 math +.50 .22962010-11 read +.02 .33562010-11 math +.01 .147432010-11 mathread -.16 .215442010-11 read -.27 .119822010-11 read -.17 .13362010-11 mathread -.06 .173062010-11 read -.06 .139512010-11 read -.16 .197752010-11 mathread +.1056 .127122010-11 math -.58 .140812010-11 read -.29 .136162010-11 math -.33 .264142010-11 math +.54 .125452010-11 math +.63 .131642010-11 read +.10 .133572010-11 math +.26 .123752010-11 mathread -.13 .214742010-11 mathread -.57 .237872010-11 read +.36 .132062010-11 mathread +.35 .117692010-11 read +.27 .126722010-11 mathread +.17 .212012010-11 read -.15 .228112010-11 mathread +.20 .171812010-11 mathread +.33 .203732010-11 read +.49 .177372010-11 read -.26 .147542010-11 read -.88 .127242010-11 read +.08 .171322010-11 mathread +.38 .138922010-11 math +.36 .249642010-11 read +.39 .13116


2010-11 math -.29 .130312010-11 mathread -.13 .127632010-11 math +.17 .12662010-11 read +.22 .40032010-11 read -.08 .12062

Average 2010-2011 +0.010 +0.21

2011-12 read +.17 .442042011-12 read -.005 .325692011-12 read +.37 .629772011-12 math +.19 .12122011-12 read +.17 .25072011-12 mathread -.22 .21762011-12 mathread +.36 .127172011-12 mathread -.29 .129212011-12 math -.79 .209742011-12 read -1.05 .427312011-12 mathread +.52 .224692011-12 math +.26 .216042011-12 read +.28 .23382011-12 read +.16 .274382011-12 read -.25 .11632011-12 mathread -.18 .389922011-12 mathread +.23 .206352011-12 mathread +.07 .188622011-12 mathread -.21 .252432011-12 mathread +.22 .28052011-12 math -.04 .170032011-12 read -.55 .513962011-12 read -1.05 .46922011-12 read +.710 .498832011-12 mathread -.005 .121892011-12 math -.41 .204242011-12 mathread +.13 .434412011-12 math +.25 .124862011-12 math -.36 .279782011-12 math +.18 .202072011-12 mathread +.15 .141762011-12 mathread +.47 .131332011-12 math -1.2 .253892011-12 mathread +.16 .117792011-12 math -.21 .293072011-12 mathread +.23 .144152011-12 mathread -.20 .209462011-12 mathread -.39 .12313


2011-12 read +.12 .583072011-12 math +.19 .123912011-12 math -.25 .684442011-12 mathread -.18 .122372011-12 math -.17 .128782011-12 math -.15 .117752011-12 read -.05 .145252011-12 read -.04 .113322011-12 read -.26 .122252011-12 math -.26 .134182011-12 math -38 .16158

Average 2011-2012 -0.073443265 0.258174681

2012-13 read -.20 .294282012-13 math +.05 .330952012-13 read +.59 .127492012-13 read +.04 .4362012-13 math +.79 .273572012-13 math -.50 .271542012-13 math +.21 .121072012-13 math -.28 .108282012-13 mathread +.02 .251242012-13 math +.05 .167412012-13 read -1.15 .443432012-13 read -.33 .340152012-13 read -.05 .178222012-13 read -.09 .175432012-13 read +.20 .319262012-13 read +.72 .327022012-13 read -.1.5 .496422012-13 read +.19 .31582012-13 read -.21 .150372012-13 math +.49 .43922012-13 mathread -.005 .205712012-13 mathread -.1.5 .412822012-13 read +.27 .486852012-13 mathread -.22 .215492012-13 mathread +.66 .270392012-13 mathread -.64 .226052012-13 mathread -.23 .116742012-13 mathread -.05 .220072012-13 mathread -.25 .12042012-13 read -.009 .144332012-13 math -.10 .1476


2012-13 math -.20 .192992012-13 math +.29 .115282012-13 mathread -.41 .311782012-13 math -1.2 .192412012-13 read +.05 .115412012-13 read +.04 .150142012-13 read -.003 .213172012-13 mathread -.34 .129942012-13 read +.01 .120672012-13 mathread +.43 .213322012-13 math -.66 .13712012-13 mathread +.15 .124812012-13 read +.07 .135332012-13 read +.06 .210962012-13 mathread -.07 .172892012-13 read +.38 .16932012-13 math +.58 .447512012-13 read -.21 .137382012-13 read +.04 .134632012-13 mathread -.24 .217822012-13 mathread +.07 .183682012-13 read +.14 .657872012-13 mathread -.14 .330812012-13 mathread +.09 .236662012-13 read +.25 .14362012-13 read +.06 .42459

Average 2012-2013 -0.064579649 0.241291754

Appendix A


The 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, r ti= y ti− y❑ti” (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.


Documents

University of North Florida€¦ · Web viewPass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) by Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, & 2014-2015 Section 3 University