NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) UPDATES

Masks are required as the campus is at red status.

CAEP

Initial Teaching Licensure Programs

In 2019-2020, K-12 students taught be UCA completes appeared to be making slightly lower gains in their learning when compared to the aggregate benchmark data. The UCA aggregate population scaled score gain x̄ = 14.31 compared to the AF aggregate gain of x̄ = 16.30. Similarly, the GPA gain for the UCA aggregate was x̄ = 1.44 compared to the AF GPA aggregate gain of x̄ = 1.65. This represents an anomaly in the data given trends in the previous two years. UCA will continue to monitor data, but given that spring 2020 saw the advent of the COVID-19 school shut-downs, data may be affected by that event. Certainly only half of the UCA prepared completers (e.g., 51 of an anticipated 101) were able to submit their scores as this requirement occurs in March, the same month of the state-side school shutdowns.

To view the data disaggregated by program, please click the following link: LINK HERE.

In AY 2019-2020 trends noted earlier continued with strengths noted in domain 4 as well as in 1b: knowledge of students (x̄ =3.18), 2a: respect and rapport (x̄ =3.11), 3a: communication (x̄ =3.19), and 3e: flexibility (x̄ = 3.14). Relative low points were noted in 2d: managing student behavior (x̄ =2.69), and 3d using assessment (x̄ =2.66). The EPP feels the work of the summer 2020 ad hoc working groups is critical to continued discussion of these low points and is optimistic the actions taken by these groups will lead to increased scores in these areas in the next 1-3 years.

To view the data disaggregated by program, please click the following link: LINK HERE.

Data on completer teaching effectiveness is also gathered through a UCA-based induction program begun in AY 2016-2017. To view the data tied to the UCA induction program, please click the following link: : LINK HERE.

Overall trends in the data 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 knowledge of content (x̄ = 3.54, 3.55, 3.58), use of instructional technology (x̄ = 3.57, 3.60, 3.66), planning and preparation (x̄ = 3.51, 3.55, 3.59), instruction (x̄ = 3.46, 3.52, 3.58), and professional responsibilities (x̄ = 3.50, 3.49, 3.64). Relative low points in the data were ability to work with students with special needs (x̄ = 3.18, 3.37, 3.46), managing student behavior (x̄ =3.11, 3.20, 3.39), and parent / family communication (x̄ = 3.30, 3.25, 3.43). 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

Disaggregated and trend data on employer satisfaction by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE. Disaggregated and trend data on completer employment milestones by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE.


Spring 2020 trends noted in the three data cycles highlighted candidate strengths including lesson planning (x̄ = 4.13) with additional high points in the data noted as content knowledge preparation (x̄ = 4.18) and instructional strategies (x̄ = 4.11). Relative low points in the data continued to include managing student behavior (x̄ = 3.42), professional learning (x̄ =3.75), and consideration of diversity (x̄ = 3.75). While all data were positive and ranged predominantly in the “well prepared” and “very well prepared” categories, faculty noted some noted areas of “adequately prepared” differences across programs. Data will be used with programs to seek continuous improvement.

Disaggregated and trend data by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE.

Initial program retention is tracked across programs from admission through graduation and licensure by the Office of Candidate Services (IR). MAT program retention is tracked across programs from admission through graduation and licensure by the MAT program coordinator. 

Data indicate that >90% of initial candidates entering internship complete and apply for their teaching license. Focus group and interview data indicate that the majority of those candidates who choose to not license do so after experiencing the internship semester and gaining a deeper understanding of the demands of the profession. 

Access to full reports – LINK HERE (initial)

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

Initial 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. 

Access to full report – LINK HERE (initial)

EPP gathers data on advanced program completers employment and retention milestones in partnership with UCA Office of Institutional Research and in partnership with DESE. Approximately 76% of completers working in APS work in identified high-needs schools in their first year of induction. The average letter grade for these schools is “C”. These schools serve a mean 47.1% students of color, 64.75% students identified as low income, schools with 15.53% SPED population, and schools with 6.57% English Language Learners.


Advanced Programs

Relative high points in the data included employer ratings around completer skills and content specific to the professional role (x̄ = 3.85, 3.64, 3.82) and ability to integrate technology into professional practice (x̄ = 3.85, 3.64, 3.82). Consistently lower points in the data included

Disaggregated employer satisfaction data by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE. Disaggregated data on completer employment milestones by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE.

Trends were consistent with previous years with high points noted for instructor ability to model best practices (x̄ =3.74) and candidates’ rating of their preparation in the area of collaboration (x̄ =3.79), preparation in professional disposition/ethics (x̄ = 3.65) and content/skills necessary for new role (x̄ =3.65). Relative low points were noted for research (x̄ =3.43) and data literacy (x̄ =3.52), but the mean was still at the top of the provided range. Within programs data were uniformly strong with the EDLP and SCCN programs showing more data points above the UCA benchmark and LIBM, RDNG, GATE, and SPED showing data below the UCA benchmark. SLMA had a mix of data above and below the benchmark. There are some inconsistencies with the previous years’ data which indicated LIBM and RDNG had stronger scores than the benchmark programs; however, consistent in the data were the lower scored for the SPED and GATE programs. It should be noted that both SPED and GATE are graduate certificate programs (not MSE programs), and this may be affecting some of the scoring. Program coordinators will continue to parse the data in the fall 2020 term.

Disaggregated and trend data by program available in supplemental document – LINK HERE. Note survey was significantly revised in spring 2019 with expanded items and revised scale. 

Advanced candidates are tracked from admission through graduation and licensure by program coordinators and UCA Office of Institutional Research. UCA IR reports fall to fall retention rates, and does not capture enrollment for spring or summer program admission. Data presented here are representative. Advanced programs report a 79% retention rate for first five year of enrollment in candidates’ programs of study.

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.

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. 

Access to full reports – LINK HERE (advanced)

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

Access to full reports – LINK HERE (advanced)

CAEP Report Archive

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