College of Education and Human Services (COEHS)
Effectiveness and Accountability Report: 2015
2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014
An Executive Summary
Megan Schramm-Possinger, Director of Assessment and Research
2009-2012 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 with
State 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 megan.possinger@unf.edu
Sincerely,
Marsha Lupi
Interim Dean, College of Education and Human Services
2|Page
Updated 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*
Year
2014-2015
Program
Completers
238
# Taking
the Exam
238
# Passing
the Exam
238
% Passing the Exam
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
100
100
Source: Florida Department of Education. *Art K-12, Biology 6-12, Chemistry 6-12, Elementary Education/ESOL K-6, English 612/ESOL, Exceptional Student Education ESOL K-12, Hearing Impaired K-12, Mathematics 6-12, MG Math/MG Science 5-9, Music K12, 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)
Program
Completers
# Taking
the Exam
# Passing
the 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
Year
Source: Florida Department of Education. **Educational Leadership and Guidance and Counseling PK-12.
3|Page
Updated April 2015
Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Exam 2014-2015
Initial Teacher Preparation ProgramsTitle 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 Education
ESOLK-12
Exceptional Student Education K-12
(Bachelor and Master’s Level)
18
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
(Master’s Level)
3
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
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%
238
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial
Preparation Title II Programs
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
% Passing State
Licensure Test
Name of Licensure Test
(Content)
# of Test
Takers
Florida Educational Leadership Exam
13
100%
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
25
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for
Non-Title II Programs
38
100%
Total Unit Overall Pass Rate
276
100%
Educational Leadership
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports).
4|Page
Updated April 2015
COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2013-2014
Initial Teacher Preparation ProgramsTitle II
Name of Licensure Test
(Content)
Art K-12
Art K-12
Biology 6-12
Biology 6-12
Chemistry 6-12
Chemistry 6-12
Elementary Education/ESOL K-6
# of Test
Takers
% Passing State
Licensure Test
2
100%
Elementary Education K-6
121
100%
English 6-12/ESOL
English 6-12
12
100%
Exceptional Student Education
ESOLK-12
Exceptional Student Education K-12
(Bachelor and Master’s Level)
24
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
(Master’s Level)
5
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
Mathematics 6-12
Mathematics 6-12
5
100%
MG Math/MG Science 5-9
Middle Grades General Science 5-9
11
100%
Music K-12
Music K-12
3
100%
PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr.
3
Prekindergarten/Primary PK-3
23
100%
Physical Education K-12
Physical Education
9
100%
Physics
Physics 6-12
Social Science 6-12
Social Science 6-12
23
100%
Educator Preparation Institute
Professional Education
40
100%
278
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial
Preparation Title II Programs
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
% Passing State
Licensure Test
Name of Licensure Test
(Content)
# of Test
Takers
Florida Educational Leadership Exam
16
100%
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
13
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for
Non-Title II Programs
29
100%
Total Unit Overall Pass Rate
307
100%
Educational Leadership
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports).
5|Page
Updated April 2015
Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2012-2013
Initial Teacher Preparation ProgramsTitle 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
2
100%
Chemistry 6-12
Chemistry 6-12
Elementary Education/ESOL K-6
Elementary Education K-6
167
100%
English 6-12/ESOL
English 6-12
13
100%
Exceptional Student Education
ESOLK-12
Exceptional Student Education K-12
(Bachelor and Master’s Level)
20
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
(Master’s Level)
10
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
Mathematics 6-12
Mathematics 6-12
11
100%
MG Math/MG Science 5-9
Middle Grades General Science 5-9
9
100%
Music K-12
Music K-12
1
100%
PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr.
3
Physical Education K-12
Prekindergarten/Primary PK-3
10
100%
Physical Education
10
100%
Physics
Physics 6-12
Social Science 6-12
Social Science 6-12
13
100%
Educator Preparation Institute
Professional Education
20
100%
289
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial
Preparation Title II Programs
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
% Passing State
Licensure Test
Name of Licensure Test
(Content)
# of Test
Takers
Florida Educational Leadership Exam
15
100%
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
15
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for
Non-Title II Programs
30
100%
Total Unit Overall Pass Rate
319
100%
Educational Leadership
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports).
6|Page
Updated April 2015
Section 2 COEHS Pass Rates Florida Teacher Certification Exam (FTCE) per Subject Area Exam: 2011-2012
Initial Teacher Preparation ProgramsTitle 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
1
100%
Chemistry 6-12
Chemistry 6-12
Elementary Education/ESOL K-6
Elementary Education K-6
148
100%
English 6-12/ESOL
English 6-12
6
100%
Exceptional Student Education
ESOLK-12
Exceptional Student Education K-12
(Bachelor and Master’s Level)
21
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
4
100%
Mathematics 6-12
Mathematics 6-12
7
100%
MG Math/MG Science 5-9
Middle Grades General Science 5-9
5
100%
Music K-12
Music K-12
5
100%
PreK-Primary Education/ESOL Age 3-Gr.
3
Prekindergarten/Primary PK-3
21
100%
Physical Education K-12
Physical Education
11
100%
Physics
Physics 6-12
Social Science 6-12
Social Science 6-12
15
100%
Educator Preparation Institute
Professional Education
18
100%
265
100%
Hearing Impaired K-12
Subtotal Pass Rate for Initial
Preparation Title II Programs
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
% Passing State
Licensure Test
Name of Licensure Test
(Content)
# of Test
Takers
Florida Educational Leadership Exam
24
100%
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
18
100%
Subtotal Pass Rate for
Non-Title II Programs
42
100%
Total Unit Overall Pass Rate
307
100%
Educational Leadership
Guidance and Counseling PK-12
Note: Data provided by the FDOE (Title II and Standard Reports).
7|Page
Updated April 2015
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
Statewide
Average Pass
*Rate
587
566
96%
Pending %
271
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 %
Basic Skills or General
Knowledge Test (GK)
Professional Education Test
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.
8|Page
Updated April 2015
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 20132014 -- 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 Name
Number of Program
Completers from 20082009 thru 2013-2014
Art
23
The Average of 2011-2012
Program Completers Who Were
Employed in Either the 2012-2013
or 2013-2014 Academic Years
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
Guidance and
Counseling
MG Math MG Gen. Sci.
PreK-/ ESOL
English/ESOL
PE
EXE/ESOL
36
25.0% (of 36) = 9
113
87.5% (of 113) = 75.37
56
170
72
60
117
80.0% (of 56) = 44.80
66.7% (of 170) = 113.39
66.7% (of 72) = 48.02
72.7% (of 60)= 43.62
76.2% (of 117) = 89.15
Ele. Ed./ESOL
990
69.6% (of 990) = 689.04
EPI
203
Total:
2,007
57.9% (of 203) = 117.54
Average: Total (1367
employed/2007 completers) =
68%
9|Page
Updated April 2015
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).
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
0-1 year
1-2 years
2-3 years
more than 3
years
Total
Response
%
10
17
0
29%
50%
0%
7
21%
34
100%
10 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
2. What is your employment status for next year?
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Answer
Contract
Signed
Contract
Expected
Contract not
Renewed
Teaching in
Another
District
Teaching in
Another State
Unsure
Teaching at a
Private
School
Leaving
Teaching
Total
Response
%
12
35%
15
44%
0
0%
4
12%
2
6%
1
3%
0
0%
0
0%
34
100%
Response
%
13
38%
12
35%
9
26%
34
100%
3. Do you teach in…?
#
10
11
12
Answer
An urban
school
A suburban
school
A rural
school
Total
11 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
4. Does your school have…?
#
1
2
Answer
Over 50% of
Students on
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
Heavy
parental
participation
Response
%
22
65%
13
38%
Response
%
5. What grade do you teach?
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Pre K-First
K-6th
6th-8th
Secondary
Level (9-12)
Total
1
13
6
3%
38%
18%
14
41%
34
100%
12 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
6. Overall, how effective do you feel as a teacher?
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Developing
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
11
32%
20
3
0
34
59%
9%
0%
100%
Value
1.76
0.37
0.61
34
13 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Need
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
14
41%
18
53%
2
6%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.65
0.36
0.60
34
14 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
8. Design instruction for students to achieve mastery
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
12
35%
18
53%
4
12%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.76
0.43
0.65
34
15 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
9. Align instruction with state-adopted standards at the
appropriate level of rigor
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Need
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
10
29%
21
62%
2
6%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.82
0.45
0.67
34
16 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
10. Select appropriate formative assessments to
monitor learning
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
12
35%
17
50%
5
15%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.79
0.47
0.69
34
17 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
11. Use diagnostic student data to plan lessons
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
10
29%
16
47%
8
24%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.94
0.54
0.74
34
18 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
12. Develop developmentally appropriate learning
experiences that require students to demonstrate a variety
of applicable skills and competencies
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
17
50%
4
12%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.74
0.44
0.67
34
19 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
13. Organize and manage the resources of time and space
to support student learning
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
18
53%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.71
0.40
0.63
34
20 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
14. Manage individual and class behaviors through a wellplanned management system
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
9
26%
17
50%
7
21%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
2.00
0.61
0.78
34
21 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
15. Convey high expectations to all students
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
15
44%
17
50%
2
6%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.62
0.36
0.60
34
22 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
16. Respect students' differing needs and diversity
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
19
56%
15
44%
0
0%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.44
0.25
0.50
34
23 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
17. Model clear written communication skills
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
21
62%
12
35%
1
3%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.41
0.31
0.56
34
24 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
18. How effective was your teacher preparation program
in preparing you to do the following:
...deliver engaging and challenging lessons
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
18
53%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.71
0.40
0.63
34
25 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
19. Maintain a climate of openness, fairness and support
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
20
59%
14
41%
0
0%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.41
0.25
0.50
34
26 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
20. Model clear oral communication skills
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
18
53%
13
38%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.56
0.44
0.66
34
27 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
21. Develop a climate that fosters inquiry
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
9
26%
22
65%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.82
0.33
0.58
34
28 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
22. Integrate appropriate and available information
technologies that foster student inquiry
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
14
41%
15
44%
3
9%
2
34
6%
100%
Value
1.79
0.71
0.84
34
29 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
23. Integrate appropriate and available communication
technologies
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
41%
15
47%
2
6%
2
32
6%
100%
Value
1.78
0.69
0.83
32
30 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
24. Utilize appropriate assistive technologies that enable students
to achieve their educational goals
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
12
39%
12
39%
6
19%
1
31
3%
100%
Value
1.87
0.72
0.85
31
31 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
25. Adapt the learning environment to accommodate the
differing needs and diversity of students
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
17
50%
14
41%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.59
0.43
0.66
34
32 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
26. ...teach literacy strategies across the curriculum
through explicit instruction
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
12
35%
15
44%
5
15%
2
34
6%
100%
Value
1.91
0.75
0.87
34
33 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
27. ...identify gaps in students' subject matter knowledge
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
10
29%
18
53%
5
15%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.91
0.57
0.75
34
34 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
28. ...modify instruction to respond to student needs (e.g.,
gaps in knowledge, preconceptions or misconceptions)
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
12
35%
19
56%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.74
0.38
0.62
34
35 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
29. ...relate and integrate the subject matter with other
disciplines and/or life experiences
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
16
47%
16
47%
2
6%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.59
0.37
0.61
34
36 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
30. ...employ higher-order questioning techniques
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
18
53%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.71
0.40
0.63
34
37 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
31. ...teach for student understanding using varied and
appropriate strategies and resources
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
14
41%
17
50%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.68
0.41
0.64
34
38 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
32. ...differentiate instruction based on an assessment of
differing needs and diversity of students
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
15
44%
5
15%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.82
0.63
0.80
34
39 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
33. ...encourage and provide immediate and specific
feedback to promote student achievement
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
16
47%
17
50%
0
0%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.59
0.43
0.66
34
40 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
34. ...utilize student feedback to monitor and support
instructional needs and to adjust instruction
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
16
47%
14
41%
3
9%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.68
0.59
0.77
34
41 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
35. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments
and measures to inform instruction based on those needs
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
17
50%
11
32%
5
15%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.71
0.70
0.84
34
42 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
36. ...analyze and apply data from multiple assessments
and measures to drive the learning process
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
11
32%
17
50%
5
15%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.88
0.59
0.77
34
43 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
37. ...design and align formative assessments that match
learning objectives
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
16
47%
4
12%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.79
0.59
0.77
34
44 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
38. ...design and align summative assessments to
determine mastery of learning objectives
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
13
38%
15
44%
6
18%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.79
0.53
0.73
34
45 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
39. ...use a variety of assessment tools to monitor student
progress
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
14
41%
17
50%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.68
0.41
0.64
34
46 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
40. ...share the outcomes and implication of student
assessment data with the student and his/her parents or
caregivers
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
10
29%
18
53%
4
12%
2
34
6%
100%
Value
1.94
0.66
0.81
34
47 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
41. ...modify textbook-based or "homegrown" assessments
and testing conditions to accommodate learning styles and
varying skill levels
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
9
26%
18
53%
7
21%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.94
0.48
0.69
34
48 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
42. ...use technology and/or software to organize and
integrate assessment data
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
11
32%
18
53%
2
6%
3
34
9%
100%
Value
1.91
0.75
0.87
34
49 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
43. ...design professional goals based upon your students'
instructional needs
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
11
32%
17
50%
4
12%
2
34
6%
100%
Value
1.91
0.69
0.83
34
50 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
44. ...use research to improve instruction and student
achievement
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
10
29%
21
62%
2
6%
1
34
3%
100%
Value
1.82
0.45
0.67
34
51 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
45. ...collaborate with colleagues to evaluate learning
outcomes and modify instruction/curricula accordingly
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Needs
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
16
47%
15
44%
3
9%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.62
0.43
0.65
34
52 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
46. Engage in ongoing reflective practice
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Need
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
18
53%
15
44%
1
3%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.50
0.32
0.56
34
53 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
47. Accept constructive feedback
#
1
2
3
4
Answer
Highly
Effective
Effective
Need
Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Total
Statistic
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Response
%
22
65%
12
35%
0
0%
0
34
0%
100%
Value
1.35
0.24
0.49
34
54 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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’ selfreported 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.
55 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Baker County High School
Westside Elementary
Bradford High School
Imagine Schools at West Melbourne
Clay Hill Elementary
Lake Asbury Elementary
Oakleaf Junior High School
Orange Park High School
Alimacani Elementary School
Andrew Jackson High School
Atlantic Beach Elementary
Atlantic Coast High School
Carter G. Woodson Elementary School
Crystal Springs Elementary
Jacksonville Heights Elementary
Kings Trail Elementary
KIPP VOICE Elementary (part of KIPP
Jacksonville)
Mandarin High School
Neptune Beach Elementary
Oceanway Elementary
Reynolds Lane Elementary
Sadie Tillis Elementary School
West Jacksonville Elementary
Doby Elementary
Callahan Intermediate School
Yulee Middle School
Interlachen Elementary
Mellon
Total
County
Baker County
Baker County
Bradford County
Brevard County
Clay County
Clay County
Clay County
Clay County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Duval County
Hillsborough County
Nassau County
Nassau County
Pasco County
Putnam County
Putnam County
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
56 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
2 Suburban
3 Rural
Total
10
14
7
31
32%
45%
23%
100%
4 Elementary School
5 Middle School
6 High School
Total
21
3
7
31
68%
10%
23%
101%
2
5
9%
23%
15
68%
22
100%
7 Charter School
8 50% or more students on Free or
Reduced Lunch
9 75% or more students on Free or
Reduced Lunch
Total
57 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Question 3: To What degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to other beginning
teachers in their ability to:
# Question
...use assessment
strategies (traditional
and alternative) to
diagnose students'
strengths and
weaknesses?
...use/develop
assessments to guide
instruction?
...use effective
communication
techniques with
students and all other
stakeholders?
...engage in
continuous
improvement for self
and school?
...use pedagogical
techniques and
strategies to foster
students' critical,
creative, and
evaluative thinking?
...use teaching and
learning strategies
that reflect students'
cultural, learning
styles, special needs
and socioeconomic
backgrounds?
...adhere to the code
of ethics and
principles of
professional conduct
of the education
profession?
...effectively manage
the classroom?
...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?
...demonstrate
knowledge and
conceptual
understanding of the
subject matter?
Much
Weaker
than other
beginning
teachers
Much
Stronger
than other
beginning
teachers
Slightly
weaker
than other
beginning
teachers
Similar to
other
beginning
teachers
Stronger
than other
beginning
teachers
0
1
15
17
0
1
0
18
14
0
0
2
16
10
5
0
3
14
11
4
1
1
15
14
1
0
3
15
12
2
0
0
16
10
6
2
1
15
9
5
0
3
10
16
4
0
1
13
17
2
58 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
...create an engaging,
active learning
environment where
students work well
collaboratively,
interact
appropriately, and are
motivated to learn?
# Question
...plan and implement
instruction for a
variety of
learners/learning
environments?
...demonstrate
pedagogical content
knowledge?
...work with education
professionals, parents
and other
stakeholders in the
continuous
improvement of the
educational
experiences of
students?
...use appropriate
technological tools to
facilitate students
learning?
...attend events held
by the school held
outside of the school
day?
...write and speak in a
logical and
understandable
manner with
appropriate
grammar?
...recognize signs of
students’ difficulty
with reading and
computational
processes?
...devise strategies to
fortify the reading
and computational
process of students
who are still building
these skills?
0
Much
Weaker
than other
beginning
teachers
3
11
16
3
Much
Stronger
than other
beginning
teachers
Slightly
weaker
than other
beginning
teachers
Similar to
other
beginning
teachers
Stronger
than other
beginning
teachers
0
2
13
15
3
0
1
19
10
3
0
1
18
11
3
0
0
12
18
3
0
2
15
13
3
0
0
13
17
3
0
2
15
15
1
1
0
20
10
1
59 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
To what degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to
other beginning teachers in their ability to:
...use assessment strategies (traditional and alternative) to
diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses?
...use/develop assessments to guide instruction?
...use effective communication techniques with students
and all other stakeholders?
...engage in continuous improvement for self and school?
...use pedagogical techniques and strategies to foster
students' critical, creative, and evaluative thinking?
...use teaching and learning strategies that reflect students'
cultural, learning styles, special needs and socioeconomic
backgrounds?
...adhere to the code of ethics and principles of professional
conduct of the education profession?
...effectively manage the classroom?
...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
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Much Weaker than other beginning teachers
Slightly weaker than other beginning teachers
Similar to other beginning teachers
Stronger than other beginning teachers
18
20
Much Stronger than other beginning teachers
60 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
To what degree do UNF beginning teachers compare to
other beginning teachers in their ability:
...demonstrate knowledge and conceptual understanding of
the subject matter?
...create an engaging, active learning environment where
students work well collaboratively, interact appropriately,
and are motivated to learn?
...plan and implement instruction for a variety of
learners/learning environments?
...demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge?
...work with education professionals, parents and other
stakeholders in the continuous improvement of the
educational experiences of students?
...use appropriate technological tools to facilitate students
learning?
...attend events held by the school held outside of the
school day?
...write and speak in a logical and understandable manner
with appropriate grammar?
...recognize signs of students’ difficulty with reading and
computational processes?
...devise strategies to fortify the reading and computational
process of students who are still building these skills?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Much Weaker than other beginning teachers
Slightly weaker than other beginning teachers
Similar to other beginning teachers
Stronger than other beginning teachers
18
20
Much Stronger than other beginning teachers
61 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Team Player
(Including strong work ethic; in and out of classroom; with all
stakeholders)
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
Professional Skills
● technology/computer/doc ion 3
● organization 1
● approach to teaching 1
● many/necessary skills 2
● communication – oral and written 3
Classroom Management
Lesson Planning
(Including engaging activities)
Willingness to Learn for Professional Growth
● desire for 2
● willingness to 4
● receptive to feedback 3
Personal Attributes
● confident, high energy, motivated, committed,
determined, dedicated, hard worker,
professionalism, engaging for students 9 (1
each)
● positive, flexible 4 (2 each)
Other:
● personal and professional experiences 2
● realistic expectations 1
Total
Frequency
Percentages
6
10%
14
23%
10
16%
4
6%
3
5%
9
15%
13
21%
3
5%
62
comments
(N=27)
100%
62 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Question 5: Approximately how many UNF-trained beginning teachers have been
employed in your school over the past five years?
Range: 0–12
Total: 26 Responses
Most common responses: #3 or #5 employees
# of UNF-trained beginning teachers
employed in the past 5 years
0-1
1
1-5
2
3
4
5
5+
6
10
10+
12
Total
Frequency
Percentage
1
2
1
2
5
2
4%
8%
4%
8%
19%
8%
27%
4%
4%
8%
4%
4%
100%
1
1
2
1
1
N=26
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 20112012. 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, 6A63 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
3.25
3.58
3.22
3.61
2011-2012
2010-2011
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.
64 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Section 8 COEHS Graduation for a Cohort of Admits and Enrolled in the 2010-2011
DOE
CODE
114
285
287
288
289
297
304
365
387
398
424
430
430
Program by Major
and Track
Art Education: Art
Education K-12
Educational
Leadership: School
Leadership
Math Education: Math
6-12
Science Education:
Biology 6-12
Science Education:
Chemistry 6-12
Special Education: Deaf
Education+
Counselor Education:
School Counseling
Middle School
Education: Math and
Science
5-9
PreK-Primary
Education
English Education:
English 6-12
Physical Education:
Physical Education K12
Special Education: ESE
Deg.
Level
Cohort
Size
n
Grad.
At
Univ.
Level
(*)
Grad. At
Coll.
Level(**)
Grad. At
Major
Level
(***)
Grad. At
Track
Level
(****)
B
4
75%
50%
25%
25%
M
25
76%
76%
72%
60%
B
11
82%
64%
36%
36%
B
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
B
3
67%
33%
0%
0%
M
11
91%
91%
91%
73%
M
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
B
2
100%
100%
100%
100%
B
7
71%
71%
57%
57%
B
19
84%
63%
47%
47%
B
8
100%
100%
75%
75%
B
M
10
2
100%
50%
90%
50%
60%
50%
60%
0%
Special Education: ESE
Elementary Education:
Elementary Education
444
B
120
90%
83%
76%
76%
K-6
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.
65 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
Art
4.20 years
Music
4.33 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
Social Science
3.17 years
Guidance and Counseling
4.65 years
MG Math MG Gen. Sci.
3.86 years
PreK-/ ESOL
4.35 years
English/ESOL
4.33 years
Phys. Ed.
3.89 years
Exceptional Ed./ESOL
4.00 years
4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
4.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 4.5 years or more.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = 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.”
66 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Elementary Ed./ESOL
4.25 years
Educator Prep. Institute
4.14 years
3.0 = The average number of years employed in the 5-year
period following initial placement is 3 years to less than 4.5
years.
3.0 = 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
67 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
MGMathMGGenSci
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 Group
2006-2007, 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
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
7 years
6 years
6 years
5 years
4 years
4 years
2 years
3 years
68 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
53%
54%
52%
52%
55%
55%
55%
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
69 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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.
70 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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 Schools
2007-2008: 43% in Title I Schools
2008-2009: 38% in Title I Schools
2009-2010: 38% in Title I Schools
2010-2011: 50% in Title I Schools
2011-2012: 44% in Title I Schools
2012-2013: 44% in Title I Schools
2013-2014: 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 20122013, 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.
71 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Gender Breakdown: Percentage of male and female completers from each cohort who have
been continuously employed.
2006-2007: 87% are female
2007-2008: 90% are female
2008-2009: 87% female
2009-2010: 86% female
2010-2011: 87% female
2011-2012: 89% female
2012-2013: 83% female
2013-2014: 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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
Kindergarten
1st grade
2nd grade
% of people
8%
2%
3%
6%
2%
3%
4%
8%
9%
10%
72 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
3rd grade
4th grade
5th grade
6th grade
13%
5%
7%
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
8%
1%
6%
3%
1%
4%
4%
7%
9%
6%
11%
9%
7%
0%
73 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
7%
2%
6%
7%
2%
3%
6%
6%
7%
9%
9%
6%
7%
0%
74 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
5%
1%
8%
3%
1%
5%
3%
9%
9%
13%
9%
6%
5%
0%
75 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
6%
1%
5%
6%
1%
1%
4%
11%
11%
10%
7%
11%
6%
3%
76 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
4%
2%
4%
7%
3%
1%
5%
7%
10%
8%
12%
9%
6%
0%
77 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
Counselor (all
levels)
Coach (math or
reading)
Language Arts
Teacher
Math Teacher
Physical Ed
Teacher
Science Teacher
Social Studies
Teacher
K
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
% of people
5%
0%
4%
5%
3%
3%
5%
11 %
9%
7%
11 %
8%
8%
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
78 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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 20102011 through 20122013 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
Performanc
e on
Statewide
Assessment
s metric
score. The
performanc
e level
target points
for Student
Performanc
e on
Statewide
Assessment
s range
from one
(1) to four
(4) and are
defined in
Rule 6A5.066, FAC.
Art
--
--
--
NA
--
--
--
NA
-0.257
-0.558
0.045
3.0
Music
Mathematics
79 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
Biology
--
--
--
NA
Chemistry
--
--
--
NA
---
---
---
NA
NA
--
--
--
NA
-0.285
--0.168
---0.046
--0.220
--0.424
---0.119
-0.790
-0.089
--0.028
NA
--
--
--
NA
Physics
Social Science
Hearing Impaired
Guidance and
Counseling
MGMathMGGenSci
PreK-/ ESOL
English/ESOL
PE
EXE/ESOL
EleEd/ESOL
EPI
3.0
NA
3.0
NA
NA
3.0
A more granular view of the VAM Scores from three, earlier cohort groups – 2010-2011, 20112012, 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 math
of the positive VAM scores, 14% were in math and reading combined
of 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 reading
of the negative VAM scores, 31% were in math and reading combined
80 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
of the negative VAM scores, 33% were in math
COMPLETION_YEAR
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
Program Completer's Average VAM
score of P - 12 grade students in Math,
Reading and/or Combined subjects
math +.37
math -.46
math -.29
reading +1.58
reading +.14
math -.32
math -.32
math -.25
math -.25
reading +.04
math +.94
math -.14
math +.32
math -.07
reading -.35
reading -.46
reading +.11
reading +.13
reading + .01
reading -.42
reading -.66
reading -.02
mathread -.02
math +1.09
mathread -.37
math +.47
math -1.00
math - .70
mathread +.28
mathread -.15
math +.84
mathread -.62
mathread -.22
read -.74
read -.46
mathread +.22
math +.50
read +.02
math +.01
Standard Error of
Program
Completer's Average
VAM score
.27708
.26484
.12896
.38683
.3093
.352
.13519
.19625
.28824
.2663
.31319
.18553
.19643
.13407
.27026
.16261
.19253
.22902
.11632
.22138
.5507
.19103
.22329
.28074
.41099
.2737
.29982
.26705
.21222
.21415
.25882
.15478
.12933
.46265
.12367
.13687
.2296
.3356
.14743
81 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
2010-11
mathread -.16
read -.27
read -.17
mathread -.06
read -.06
read -.16
mathread +.1056
math -.58
read -.29
math -.33
math +.54
math +.63
read +.10
math +.26
mathread -.13
mathread -.57
read +.36
mathread +.35
read +.27
mathread +.17
read -.15
mathread +.20
mathread +.33
read +.49
read -.26
read -.88
read +.08
mathread +.38
math +.36
read +.39
math -.29
mathread -.13
math +.17
read +.22
read -.08
.21544
.11982
.1336
.17306
.13951
.19775
.12712
.14081
.13616
.26414
.12545
.13164
.13357
.12375
.21474
.23787
.13206
.11769
.12672
.21201
.22811
.17181
.20373
.17737
.14754
.12724
.17132
.13892
.24964
.13116
.13031
.12763
.1266
.4003
.12062
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
read +.17
read -.005
read +.37
math +.19
read +.17
mathread -.22
mathread +.36
mathread -.29
.44204
.32569
.62977
.1212
.2507
.2176
.12717
.12921
Average 2010-2011
+0.010
+0.21
82 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
2011-12
math -.79
read -1.05
mathread +.52
math +.26
read +.28
read +.16
read -.25
mathread -.18
mathread +.23
mathread +.07
mathread -.21
mathread +.22
math -.04
read -.55
read -1.05
read +.710
mathread -.005
math -.41
mathread +.13
math +.25
math -.36
math +.18
mathread +.15
mathread +.47
math -1.2
mathread +.16
math -.21
mathread +.23
mathread -.20
mathread -.39
read +.12
math +.19
math -.25
mathread -.18
math -.17
math -.15
read -.05
read -.04
read -.26
math -.26
math -38
.20974
.42731
.22469
.21604
.2338
.27438
.1163
.38992
.20635
.18862
.25243
.2805
.17003
.51396
.4692
.49883
.12189
.20424
.43441
.12486
.27978
.20207
.14176
.13133
.25389
.11779
.29307
.14415
.20946
.12313
.58307
.12391
.68444
.12237
.12878
.11775
.14525
.11332
.12225
.13418
.16158
Average 2011-2012
-0.073443265
0.258174681
2012-13
read -.20
.29428
83 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
math +.05
read +.59
read +.04
math +.79
math -.50
math +.21
math -.28
mathread +.02
math +.05
read -1.15
read -.33
read -.05
read -.09
read +.20
read +.72
read -.1.5
read +.19
read -.21
math +.49
mathread -.005
mathread -.1.5
read +.27
mathread -.22
mathread +.66
mathread -.64
mathread -.23
mathread -.05
mathread -.25
read -.009
math -.10
math -.20
math +.29
mathread -.41
math -1.2
read +.05
read +.04
read -.003
mathread -.34
read +.01
mathread +.43
math -.66
mathread +.15
read +.07
read +.06
mathread -.07
.33095
.12749
.436
.27357
.27154
.12107
.10828
.25124
.16741
.44343
.34015
.17822
.17543
.31926
.32702
.49642
.3158
.15037
.4392
.20571
.41282
.48685
.21549
.27039
.22605
.11674
.22007
.1204
.14433
.1476
.19299
.11528
.31178
.19241
.11541
.15014
.21317
.12994
.12067
.21332
.1371
.12481
.13533
.21096
.17289
84 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
2012-13
read +.38
math +.58
read -.21
read +.04
mathread -.24
mathread +.07
read +.14
mathread -.14
mathread +.09
read +.25
read +.06
.1693
.44751
.13738
.13463
.21782
.18368
.65787
.33081
.23666
.1436
.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, 𝑟𝑡𝑖 = 𝑦𝑡𝑖 − 𝑦̂𝑡𝑖 ” (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
85 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
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
86 | P a g e
Updated April 2015
inform the continuous improvement of these programs, positioning UNF as a proud leader in
the fields of administrative, counselor and educator training.
87 | P a g e
Updated April 2015