CAEP

Initial Teaching Licensure Programs

Data from the pre/post-test reporting were manipulated by the EPP to ease analysis and interpretation of data. Novice teachers report their pre/post-test class averages based on ranges provided to them on the reporting form.

Data were then staged to calculate gain/loss from pre to post based on the conversion chart to a scaled score. For example, if a class pre-performance mean was 75-79%, and the class post-performance mean was 85-89%, calculate difference between “75” and “85” to be a gain of “10”. Again, the “Below 60” response just pegged at “60” in order not to overinflate the numbers. The GPA conversion was seen as another method to stage the data for ease of analysis by faculty and stakeholders.

The fact that the data are self-reported by the novice teachers should be considered a limitation of the study; however, given the variability in reported data, it appears novice teachers reported their data with fidelity.

Finally, the EPP examines data on a case-by-case basis to look for trends and patterns tied to licensure program preparation. Qualitative data resulting from the final prompts provided for the novice teachers are slated for program coordinator analysis in January 2020 after the submission of the self-study. Results and are linked here –http://bit.ly/2NSSp6D.

Data presented here were secured through partnership with Arch Ford (AF) Novice Teacher (NT) Mentoring Program begun in summer 2017. The AFNT program supports UCA graduates in induction for 3-years post graduation. Districts in the AFNT region support 30% of UCA prepared teacher candidates representing all programs across the EPP. All novice teachers in the AFNT program are observed by their mentor teacher and scored on the state-mandated performance observation rubric (Danielson, 2007). Data for UCA prepared teachers is compared to the AF aggregate as a benchmark.
In AY 2020-2021 trends noted earlier continued with strengths noted in domain 4 as well as in 1b: knowledge of students (x̄ =3.53), 2e: organizing physical space (x̄ =3.74), 3a: communication (x̄ =3.19), 3e: flexibility (x̄ = 3.47), 4b: accurate records (x̄ =3.47), and 4e: growing professionally (x̄ = 3.47). Relative low points were noted in 2d: managing student behavior (x̄ =3.00), 1f: designing student assessments (x̄ = 3.11), and 3b: using questioning and discussion (x̄ = 3.11)

UCA measures employer satisfaction of program completers through multiple measures including a UCA survey, Arch Ford partner employee survey, and ADE/DESE measure of employer satisfaction. The data presented here were collected through a UCA principal survey aligned to the expectations of the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards. All data included in the data set were scored on a scale of 1-4 (1 = not prepared, 2 = inadequately prepared, 3 = adequately prepared, 4 = well prepared) with a target score of “3.”
Overall trends in Spring 2021 indicate that the EPP is doing well in preparing candidates to for the field with all scores falling in the upper range of the survey (levels 3-4). Relative high points in the data include candidate use of instructional technology (x̄ = 3.60, 3.66, 3.73), knowledge of content (x̄ = 3.55, 3.58, 3.72), ability to work with students with special needs (x̄ = 3.37, 3.46, 3.72) which is an uptick in the data, and ability to create an effective learning environment (x̄ = 3.54, 3.42, 3.71). Relative low points in the data were managing student behavior (x̄ = 3.20, 3.39, 3.44) and using student assessment in instruction (x̄ =3.39, 3.33, 3.5). Faculty in the CAEP Standard 4 committee noted a trend up over the three semesters in the data except for professional responsibilities (already a strong point) and for parent/ family communication.

Candidate pass rate on required content Praxis exams is tracked across programs by the Office of Candidate Services (OCS). Disaggregated program data are tracked for pass rates, mean score, standard deviation, and range
Both initial and advanced programs report overall success in candidate ability to pass the required Praxis content exam(s) with many programs yielding pass rates at 90% and higher. A trend in pass rates for elementary content areas has been noted, and the EPP has created several support and remediation structures for students struggling to pass their required exam(s) successfully, including: 240 Tutoring, Praxis Boot Camps (DESE grant), and state resources/tutoring programs

EPP gathers data on initial program completers’ employment and retention milestones in partnership with UCA Office of Institutional Research and in partnership with Arkansas Division of Elementary and Secondary Education.


Advanced Programs

The data presented here were collected through an employer survey aligned to the expectations of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (Standard A.1.1). All data included in the data set were scored on a scale of 1-4 (1 = not prepared, 2 = inadequately prepared, 3 = adequately prepared, 4 = well prepared) with a target score of “3.”
Relative high points in the data in spring 2021 included employer ratings around completer skills and content specific to the professional role (x̄ = 3.64, 3.82, 3.79) and ability to respond to the needs of diverse stakeholders (x̄ = 3.52, 3.82, 3.75). Consistently lower points in the data included understand/use of data to support professional role (x̄ = 3.64, 3.82, 3.7) and professional dispositions (x̄ = 3.4, 3.68, 3.7). Again, while these data points are the relative low spots in the data, all far exceed the benchmark and lie near the “well prepared” indicator.

Candidate pass rate on required content Praxis exams is tracked across programs by the Office of Candidate Services (OCS). Disaggregated program data are tracked for pass rates, mean score, standard deviation, and range
Both initial and advanced programs report overall success in candidate ability to pass the required Praxis content exam(s) with many programs yielding pass rates at 90% and higher. A trend in pass rates for elementary content areas has been noted, and the EPP has created several support and remediation structures for students struggling to pass their required exam(s) successfully, including: 240 Tutoring, Praxis Boot Camps (DESE grant), and state resources/tutoring programs

EPP gathers data on advanced program completers employment and retention milestones in partnership with UCA Office of Institutional Research.

CAEP Report Archive

CAEP Annual Report (Spring 2021)
CAEP Annual Report (Spring 2020)
CAEP Annual Report 
(Spring 2019)
CAEP Annual Report (Spring 2018)
NCATE Accreditation Review (Fall 2011)