ETSU EPP Annual Report2020 EPP Annual Report CAEP ID: 11314 AACTE SID: 990
Institution: East Tennessee State University
Unit: Clemmer College
Section 1. EPP Profile After reviewing and/or updating the Educator Preparation Provider's (EPP's) profile in AIMS, check the box to indicate that the information available is accurate.
1.1 In AIMS, the following information is current and accurate... Agree Disagree
1.1.1 Contact person 1.1.2 EPP characteristics 1.1.3 Program listings
1.2 [For EPPs seeking Continuing CAEP Accreditation]. Please provide a link to your webpage that demonstrates accurate representation of your Initial-Licensure Level and/or Advanced-Level programs as reviewed and accredited by CAEP (NCATE or TEAC). https://www.etsu.edu/coe/aboutcoe/cc_programs.php
Section 2. Program Completers 2.1 How many candidates completed programs that prepared them to work in preschool through grade 12 settings during Academic Year 2018-2019 ?
Enter a numeric value for each textbox.
2.1.1 Number of completers in programs leading to initial teacher certification or 163 licensure1
2.1.2 Number of completers in advanced programs or programs leading to a degree, endorsement, or some other credential that prepares the holder to serve in P-12 schools (Do not include those completers counted above.)2
Total number of program completers 212
1 For a description of the scope for Initial-Licensure Programs, see Policy 3.01 in the Accreditation Policy Manual 2 For a description of the scope for Advanced-Level Programs, see Policy 3.02 in the Accreditation Policy Manual
Section 3. Substantive Changes Have any of the following substantive changes occurred at your educator preparation provider or institution/organization during the 2018-2019 academic year?
3.1 Changes in the established mission or objectives of the institution/organization or the EPP
49
3.2 Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership of the EPP.
3.3 The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential level different from those that were offered when most recently accredited
3.4 The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure, in terms of either content or delivery, from those that were offered when most recently accredited
3.5 A contract with other providers for direct instructional services, including any teach-out agreements
Welcome to East Tennessee State University’s Educator Preparation Program data website. The EPP is currently accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In fall 2021, the Educator Preparation Program Unit at ETSU will be seeking national accreditation through the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). CAEP has identified eight (8) annual outcome and impact measures and requires EPPs to provide data that can be shared and easily understood by the public.
Impact Measures
(Data Source: Tennessee Department of Education)
Description of Data: Impact of Tennessee Teachers Prepared by East Tennessee State University on P-12 Learning and Development
Level of Overall Effectiveness (LOE) Data
The Level of Overall Effectiveness rating is a quantitative score comprised of teacher observations, student growth data gathered from the Tennessee Valued-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), and student achievement data. Data from these sources are combined to create a scale score between 100 and 500. Descriptors of score ranges are listed here:
Score Range
<200
1
A teacher at this level has limited knowledge of the instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities described in the rubric, and struggles to implement them. He/she makes little attempt to use data to set and reach appropriate teaching and learning goals, and has little to no impact on student achievement.
200-274.99
2
A teacher at this level demonstrates some knowledge of the instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities described in the rubric, but implements them inconsistently. He/she may struggle to use data to set and reach appropriate teaching and learning goals. His/her impact on student achievement is less than expected
275-349.99
3
A teacher at this level understands and implements most of the instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities described in the rubric. He/she uses data to set and reach teaching and learning goals and makes the expected impact on student achievement.
350-424.99
4
A teacher at this level comprehends the instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities described in the rubric and implements them consistently. He/she is skilled at using data to set and reach appropriate teaching and learning goals and makes a strong impact on student achievement.
425-500
5
A teacher at this level exemplifies the instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities described in the rubric, and implements them without fail.  He/she is adept at using data to set and reach ambitious teaching and learning goals. He/she makes a significant impact on student achievement and should be considered a model of exemplary teaching.
Results of ETSU completers are shown below reflective of the 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 academic years.
Distribution of Overall Level of Effectiveness Ratings for Tennessee Teachers Prepared by East Tennessee State University
Initial Licensure Effective Year
2016
1.1
1.7
23.9
49.4
23.9
97.2
2017
0.0
6.5
37.0
40.2
16.3
93.5
2018
0.00
8.0
29.0
44.0
19.0
92.0
A three year composite score represents the combined scores for 2015-2018 completers by LOE level. 95.0% of Tennessee teachers prepared by East Tennessee State University earned Levels of Effectiveness scores of 3 and higher, which is consistently higher than the state value.
3-year values in the Distribution of LOE for ETSU Completers
Initial Licensure Effective Year
Level 1
score
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 3+
Limitations of the LOE Data
1. The information reported is for individuals receiving their licenses with effective years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018.
2. The information reported is for individuals who are employed in public schools within the State of Tennessee. Impact data for teachers prepared by East Tennessee State University who are employed in other States or in private education settings are not included in the displayed data.
3. If an individual had a LOE rating, they are included in the metric. However, it is possible that an individual does not have all three of the data points, but is included in an evaluation metric for which there is data.
4. Due to legislative changes made in the 2013 legislative sessions, the calculation for overall levels of effectiveness is dependent upon whether a teacher has an individual growth score (due to teaching in a tested subject/grade level) or a school- or system-wide growth score (due to teaching in a non-tested subject/grade level).
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment Data
The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) consists of student growth scores collected annually by the Tennessee Department of Education (TNDOE). These scores are shared with Tennessee Educator Preparation Programs via an online data system, TNAtlas, provided by the Tennessee Department of Education. The availability of data encourages continuous review and improvement in Educator Preparation Programs.
Results of ETSU completers are shown below reflective of the 2015- 2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years.
Distribution of TVAAS Ratings
Initial Licensure Effective Year
% of completers with TVAAS score
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
% of completers with TVAAS score
Level 3+
2016
14.0
14.0
30.2
11.6
30.2
72.1
2017
23.4
12.8
38.3
12.8
12.8
63.8
2018
20.0
16.7
33.3
23.3
6.7
63.3
A three year composite score represents the combined scores for 2016-2018 completers by LOE level. 66.0 percent of Tennessee Teachers prepared by the EPP Unit at East Tennessee State University who received a TVAAS score earned a score of 3 or higher. This percentage is higher than the state value of 59.44%.
3-year values in the Distribution of TVAAS Ratings for ETSU Completers
Initial Licensure Effective Year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 3+
Limitations of the TVAAS Data
1. The information in the chart above is for those individuals who received their licenses from East Tennessee State University in 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018.
2. If an individual had a TVAAS rating, they are included in the metric. However, it is possible that an individual does not have all three of the data points, but is included in an evaluation metric for which there is data.
3. If an individual opted to nullify 2017-2018 TVAAS scores, the value used in this metric was: the most recent multi-year composite TVAAS value, or; If a multi-year composite scores was not available, the prior years’ single-year TVAAS value is used, or; If no prior TVAAS score is available, multi- or single-year, that individual is not included in the data set.
Description of Data: Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness for Tennessee Teachers Prepared by East Tennessee State University
Teacher Observation Ratings
The teacher evaluation in Tennessee public schools consists of frequent observations and constructive feedback for teachers through multiple observations and pre- and post-conferences. Using the indicators of the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) rubric, teachers and school leaders work together to identify what is working well in the classroom (area of reinforcement), where there is room for improvement (areas of refinement), and options for professional development to support continued growth.
The standards included in the TEAM rubric were developed through a collaboration with the Tennessee Department of Education and the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). The rubrics are based on educational psychology and cognitive science research on learning and instruction as well as an extensive review of publications from national and state teacher standards organizations.
The Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Professionalism Performance Standards are divided into four domains: Instruction, Environment, Planning and Professionalism. Performance definitions are provided at levels 5, 3, and 1, but raters can also score performance at levels 2 or 4 based on their professional judgment.
Observation ratings are collected annually by the Tennessee Department of Education (TNDOE) and shared via the TNAtlas system, an online system to house data and to encourage continuous improvement of programming.
Distribution of Observation Ratings on the Observation Ratings of ETSU Completers
Initial Licensure Effective Year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 3+
2016
0.0
3.4
30.9
54.3
11.4
96.6
2017
0.0
7.4
37.2
50.0
5.3
92.6
2018
0.0
3.0
38.6
45.5
12.9
97.0
A three year composite score represents the combined scores for 2015-2018 completers for TEAM Observation Ratings. 96.7 percent of Tennessee Teachers prepared by the EPP Unit at East Tennessee State University who received a TEAM score earned a score of 3 or higher, which is higher than the state value for the past two years under review.
3-year values in the Distribution of Observation Ratings of ETSU Completers
Initial Licensure Effective Year
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 3+
Limitations of the Observation Data
1. The information in the report is for those individuals receiving their licensure with effective years of 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
2. If an individual had a Observation rating, they are included in the metric. However, it is possible that an individual does not have all three of the data points, but is included in an evaluation metric for which there is data.
Description of Data: Satisfaction of Employers and Employment Milestones for Tennessee Teachers Prepared by East Tennessee State University
Satisfaction of Employers and Employment Milestones
(Data Source: East Tennessee State University)
Principal Survey: At the end of the 2018-2019 school year, Principals from local partnering schools were asked to rate their satisfaction with teachers they hired at the beginning of the 2018 school year who were graduates from the ETSU teacher education program.   Fifty-one (N= 51) Principals participated in this survey for this year, but 4 of the Principals agreeing to participate did not hire ETSU graduates, thus leaving the final sample size at 47. This is a drastic increase from the 12 principals who completed the survey in the previous pilot year (2017-2018). 
Principals were asked on a 4-point scale (strongly disagree/strongly agree) their perceptions on the capability of the ETSU teachers they hired in relation to inTASC teaching behaviors. Based on the inTASC teacher behaviors presented related to the ETSU graduates hired Principals reported that they strongly agreed with 39.1% of the behaviors, agreed with 58.5% of the behaviors, and disagreed with 2.4% of the behaviors. No Principals reported strongly disagreeing with any teaching behaviors.
Of specific note, Principals indicated that the teachers hired from ETSU were specifically strong in their ability to (a) develop a learning environment that promotes self-directed and collaborative interactions and experiences. (M= 3.51, SD= .54), (b) uses a variety of instructional strategies to support and expand learners’ communication through speaking, listening, writing, and other modes. (M= 3.5, SD= .54), and (c) uses verbal and nonverbal communication with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives in the learning environment. (M= 3.48, SD= .5). 
Teaching behaviors that were reported the lowest by Principals were the ETSU teachers’ ability to (a) recognizes learning misconceptions in a discipline, and then is able to create learning experiences that build accurate conceptual understanding. (M=3.11, SD= .48), and (b) plans for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. (M=3.24, SD= .47). 
Limitations of the Principal Survey Data:
1. Though, overall, principals rated ETSU employed teachers high on their teaching behaviors and professionalism, one limitation of this study is that principals rated employed teachers from the 2018-2019 school year collectively.   As a result, a principal at a specific school who hired three ETSU graduates for 2018-2019 rated all three employees collectively.  Though the study address specific licensure areas, it is unable to differentiate specific teachers (unless only one teacher was hired from ETSU in a school year)
Principal Assessment of ETSU Teachers Hired 2018-2019: Percentages
Description of Data: Satisfaction of Tennessee Teachers Who Were Prepared by East Tennessee State University
Satisfaction of Completers
The Tennessee Department of Education through TN Atlas provides the following data on Completer Satisfaction for the 2015-2018 cohort.
Completer Satisfaction for 2014-2017
State value
88.1
89.22
84.6
84.93
83.3
84.69
Limitations of the Completer Satisfaction Data:
1. Although an overall value of the perception of completer satisfaction are provided in TNAtlas, there is little to no information that would be useful for an EPP to make improvements or to acknowledge successful areas in serving its candidates during their preparation program.
Completer Survey
(Data Source: East Tennessee State University)
During the completion of the 2018-2019 school year, ETSU surveyed in-service teachers who (a) completed their first year of teaching in public schools and (b) were graduates of an ETSU teacher licensure initial licensure program. The purpose of the survey was to request feedback on the impact teacher preparation at ETSU had on the current classroom instruction of in-service teachers. The survey provided statements related to instructional practice and professional dispositions (aligned with the InTASC Standards) and graduates to respond based on the impact it had on their teaching today. Of those graduates 66 completed their educator preparation at ETSU at the bachelor’s level (90.4%), and 7 at the graduate level (9.6%).
The first major construct that was addressed in the survey was how effective the graduates perceived their teacher preparation program at ETSU prepared them for quality instruction and professional practice. Graduates felt that ETSU best prepared them to (a) design instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge and experiences (M= 3.57, SD= .57), (b) assess student performance and can make informed instructional decisions to meet learners’ developmental needs (M= 3.49, SD= .57), and (c) plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. (M= 3.49, SD= .54). Graduates noted that ETSU least prepared them to (d) collaborate with learners, families, and other school personnel to establish mutual expectations and ongoing communication to support learner development and achievement. (M= 3.18, SD= .76).
The second construct that was addressed in the survey was the graduates’ current perceptions of their confidence levels related to quality instruction and professional practice. As was the case with how graduates perceived their preparation at ETSU, current levels of confidence were again the highest regarding designing instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge and experiences (M= 3.57, SD= .57) and planning for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. (M= 3.49, SD= .57). Graduates rated their current level of confidence the lowest related to seeking opportunities to draw upon current educational theory, policy, and research as sources of analysis and reflection to improve practice (M= 3.32, SD= .51).
Overall completers felt well prepared at ETSU (all means > 3.18 on 4-point scale). This year’s data seem to demonstrate that our graduates feel highly confident related to planning, and assessment based on diverse student needs. Our EPP is reviewing our placement process with partnering local education agencies to improve upon the placement experiences of our candidates.
ETSU Teacher graduates’ perception of how well their program prepared them based on the listed teaching behaviors
ETSU Teacher graduates’ current level of confidence based on the listed teaching behaviors
Outcome Measures
Initial programs
Ability of Completers of Teacher Preparation Programs at East Tennessee State University to Meet Licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements
(Data Source: ETS Client Services, Title II Report)
For initial licensure in the state of Tennessee and State Requirements all teacher candidates must complete the required examinations including edTPA and separate subject area tests for the licensure area sought. 100 percent of completers of the Educator Preparation Program at East Tennessee State University meet the licensing requirements required for certification.
The Praxis data reported here outlines a summary of pass rates in addition to the number of testers, average scaled score, number of passing tests, and pass rate percentage for program completers for the following academic years: 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019. Tests in which there are less than 10 test takers are noted as <10 and additional data are omitted.
Reporting Period 2016-2019 (includes test takers in the 2016-2019 academic years) (Data Source: Educational Testing Service)
Assessment code-name-company-group
2016-2017
22
170
22
100
2016-2017
64
176
64
100
2016-2017
12
181
12
100
2016-2017
55
174
55
100
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
21
171
21
100
2016-2017
58
172
58
100
2016-2017
79
174
79
100
2016-2017
13
179
13
100
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
12
171
12
100
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
<10
ETS5543 -SE CK AND MILD TO MODERATE APPL 7 (ETS)
2016-2017
<10
ETS5545 -SE CK AND SEVERE TO PROF APPL 8 (ETS)
2016-2017
<10
2016-2017
18
174
18
100
2016-2017
101
174
101
100
2016-2017
<10
2017-2018
28
173
28
100
2017-2018
65
177
65
100
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
53
177
53
100
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
51
172
51
100
2017-2018
77
173
77
100
2017-2018
27
174
27
100
2017-2018
11
179
11
100
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
ETS5543 -SE CK AND MILD TO MODERATE APPL 7 (ETS)
2017-2018
<10
ETS5545 -SE CK AND SEVERE TO PROF APPL 8 (ETS)
2017-2018
14
177
14
100
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
<10
2017-2018
101
175
101
100
2017-2018
13
169
13
100
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
19 
171 
19 
100 
2018-2019
84 
174 
83 
99 
2018-2019
65 
172 
65 
100 
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
13 
179 
13 
100 
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
103 
174 
102 
99 
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
16 
44 
16 
100 
2018-2019
29 
49 
29 
100 
2018-2019
30 
50 
30 
100 
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
12 
52 
12 
100 
2018-2019
10 
47 
10 
100 
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
<10
2018-2019
16 
49 
16 
100 
2018-2019
<10
Reporting Period July 2016-June 2019 (Data Source: edreports.nesinc.com/TN)
Three Year Summary: Available edTPA Assessment Scores by Assessment | July 2016 – June 2019 |
edTPA Assessment
(highest qualifying score: 38)
Pass Rate for 2020
(40)
Pass Rate for 2021 based on Current Three-Year Period Scores
(42)
0
0
Available edTPA Assessment Scores by Assessment | July 2018 – June 2019 |
edTPA Assessment
Mean Score
Agricultural Ed
0
45
0
38
Available edTPA Assessment Scores by Assessment | July 2017 – June 2018 |
edTPA Assessment
Mean Score
Agricultural Ed
0
44
0
37
Available edTPA Assessment Scores by Assessment | July 2016 – June 2017 |
edTPA Assessment
Mean Score
Agricultural Ed
0
44
0
37
15 rubric assessments (remaining areas)
18 rubric assessments (Elementary Education)
Qualifying Score through December 31, 2018
32
37
44
33
38
46
35
40
48
36
42
50
Ability of completers of the teacher preparation program at East Tennessee State University to be hired in education positions for which they have been prepared (initial & advanced levels)
Employment Rate in Initial Licensure Programs
Data Source: TN Atlas
Data per TN Atlas indicate that across the years 2015-2018 63.4% of our initial licensure graduates obtained teaching jobs within 1 year of obtaining their initial license. While this initial year of employment is lower than the state value, the metric analyzing those individuals who were employed for a single year and eligible for employment for a second (94.2%) and third year (86.0%) exceeds the state values.
Limitations of Employment Rate:
1. These data do not account for completers who entered a teaching position outside of Tennessee or in private educational settings. Additionally, some graduates may have entered additional educational opportunities in higher education.
Advanced Level Program Employment of Completers
Data Source: East Tennessee State University
Reading Specialist M.Ed
Not Employed in Education
Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced)
Data source: US Department of Education
The three-year (2014-2017) federal student loan default rate average for students at East Tennessee State University was 10 percent which is below the national average.
25
1 Assess student performance and make informed instructional decisions to meet learners’ developmental needs (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical) 40.43% 19 57.45% 27 2.13% 1 0.00% 0 47
2 Adapt instruction to address students’ individual strengths, interests, and needs to advanced individual student learning in different ways. 42.22% 19 55.56% 25 2.22% 1 0.00% 0 45
3 Designs instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge and experiences. 44.44% 20 55.56% 25 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 45
4 Develops a learning environment that promotes self-directed and collaborative interactions and experiences. 53.33% 24 44.44% 20 2.22% 1 0.00% 0 45
5 Use verbal and nonverbal communication with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives in the learning environment. 47.83% 22 52.17% 24 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 46
6 Possess a deep knowledge of student content standards and learning progressions in the discipline s/he teaches 32.61% 15 63.04% 29 4.35% 2 0.00% 0 46
7 Recognizes learning misconceptions in a discipline, and then is able to create learning experiences that build accurate conceptual understanding. 17.39% 8 76.09% 35 6.52% 3 0.00% 0 46
8 Understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to his/her discipline. 37.78% 17 57.78% 26 4.44% 2 0.00% 0 45
9 Understand AND use multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide decision making. 32.61% 15 65.22% 30 2.17% 1 0.00% 0 46
10 Plans for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. 26.09% 12 71.74% 33 2.17% 1 0.00% 0 46
11 Engages learners in using a range of learning and technology tools to access, interpret, and evaluate information. 34.78% 16 65.22% 30 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 46
12 Uses a variety of instructional strategies to support and expand learners’ communication through speaking, listening, writing, and other modes. 52.17% 24 45.65% 21 2.17% 1 0.00% 0 46
13 Understands the expectations of the profession including code of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant policy and law. 47.83% 22 50.00% 23 2.17% 1 0.00% 0 46
Totals 233 348 14 SA Total % 39.16% A Total % 58.49% Dis Total % 2.35%
Stongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Total
and physical) 40.43%1957.45%272.13%10.00%047
2
and needs to advanced individual student learning in different ways.42.22%1955.56%252.22%10.00%045
3
experiences. 44.44%2055.56%250.00%00.00%045
4
collaborative interactions and experiences. 53.33%2444.44%202.22%10.00%045
5
diverse cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives in the learning
environment. 47.83%2252.17%240.00%00.00%046
6
Possess a deep knowledge of student content standards and learning
progressions in the discipline s/he teaches 32.61%1563.04%294.35%20.00%046
7
Recognizes learning misconceptions in a discipline, and then is able
to create learning experiences that build accurate conceptual
understanding. 17.39%876.09%356.52%30.00%046
8
Understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to
engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative
problem solving related to his/her discipline. 37.78%1757.78%264.44%20.00%045
9
Understand AND use multiple methods of assessment to engage
learners in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide
decision making. 32.61%1565.22%302.17%10.00%046
10
Plans for instruction based on formative and summative assessment
data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. 26.09%1271.74%332.17%10.00%046
11
Engages learners in using a range of learning and technology tools to
access, interpret, and evaluate information. 34.78%1665.22%300.00%00.00%046
12
Uses a variety of instructional strategies to support and expand
learners’ communication through speaking, listening, writing, and
other modes. 52.17%2445.65%212.17%10.00%046
13
ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant policy and law.47.83%2250.00%232.17%10.00%046
Totals 233 348 14
Stongly Agree Agree DisagreeStrongly Disagree
Field Mean Std Dev Develop a learning environment that promotes self-directed and collaborative interactions and experiences. 3.44 0.63 Design instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge and experiences. 3.42 0.53 Plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. 3.42 0.56 Assess student performance and can make informed instructional decisions to meet learners’ developmental needs (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical). 3.35 0.51 Possess a deep knowledge of student content standards and learning progressions in the discipline. 3.35 0.61 Recognize learning misconceptions in a discipline, and then creates learning experiences that build accurate conceptual understanding. 3.35 0.55 Use a variety of instructional strategies to support and expand learners’ communication through speaking, listening, writing, and other modes. 3.33 0.63 Take responsibility for contributing to and advancing the profession. 3.33 0.6 Understand how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to the discipline. 3.31 0.63 Understand AND use multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide decision making. 3.31 0.68 Seek opportunities to draw upon current educational theory, policy, and research as sources of analysis and reflection to improve practice. 3.29 0.62 Engage learners in using a range of learning and technology tools to access, interpret, and evaluate information. 3.27 0.7 Understand the expectations of the profession including code of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant policy and law. 3.27 0.72 Adapt instruction to address students’ individual strengths, interests, and needs to advance individual student learning in different ways. 3.25 0.64 Use verbal and nonverbal communication with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives in the learning environment. 3.25 0.69 Collaborate with learners, families, and other school personnel to establish mutual expectations and ongoing communication to support learner development and achievement. 3.18 0.76
Field Mean Std Dev Design instruction to build on learners’ prior knowledge and experiences. 3.57 0.57 Assess student performance and can make informed instructional decisions to meet learners’ developmental needs (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical). 3.49 0.57 Plan for instruction based on formative and summative assessment data, prior learning knowledge, and learner interest. 3.49 0.54 Develop a learning environment that promotes self-directed and collaborative interactions and experiences. 3.47 0.63 Understand AND use multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide decision making. 3.47 0.54 Understand how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to the discipline. 3.45 0.53 Understand the expectations of the profession including code of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant policy and law. 3.45 0.53 Collaborate with learners, families, and other school personnel to establish mutual expectations and ongoing communication to support learner development and achievement. 3.43 0.57 Adapt instruction to address students’ individual strengths, interests, and needs to advance individual student learning in different ways. 3.42 0.53 Engage learners in using a range of learning and technology tools to access, interpret, and evaluate information. 3.42 0.63 Recognize learning misconceptions in a discipline, and then creates learning experiences that build accurate conceptual understanding. 3.4 0.53 Use a variety of instructional strategies to support and expand learners’ communication through speaking, listening, writing, and other modes. 3.4 0.53 Take responsibility for contributing to and advancing the profession. 3.4 0.62 Use verbal and nonverbal communication with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives in the learning environment. 3.38 0.59 Possess a deep knowledge of student content standards and learning progressions in the discipline. 3.38 0.52 Seek opportunities to draw upon current educational theory, policy, and research as sources of analysis and reflection to improve practice. 3.32 0.51
2018-2019-CAEP ANNUAL REPORT Information for the CC website.docx
Level \ Annual Reporting Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Initial-Licensure Programs Advanced-Level Programs
Any change that means the EPP no longer satisfies accreditation standards or requirements: 3.6 Change in regional accreditation status
3.7 Change in state program approval
Section 4. Display of Annual Reporting Measures. Annual Reporting Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 | A.5.4)
Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4) Outcome Measures 1. Impact on P-12 learning and development 5. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels) (Component 4.1)
6. Ability of completers to meet licensing 2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (certification) and any additional state (Component 4.2) requirements; Title II (initial & advanced
levels) 3. Satisfaction of employers and employment 7. Ability of completers to be hired in milestones education positions for which they have (Component 4.3 | A.4.1) prepared (initial & advanced levels)
8. Student loan default rates and other 4. Satisfaction of completers consumer information (initial & advanced (Component 4.4 | A.4.2) levels) 4.1 Provide a link or links that demonstrate data relevant to each of the Annual Reporting Measures are public-friendly and prominently displayed on the educator preparation provider's website.
1 Link: https://www.etsu.edu/coe/aboutcoe/report.php
Description of data accessible via link: East Tennessee State University Educator Preparation Data
Tag the Annual Reporting Measure(s) represented in the link above to the appropriate preparation level(s) (initial and/or advanced, as offered by the EPP) and corresponding measure number.
4.2 Summarize data and trends from the data linked above, reflecting on the prompts below.
What has the provider learned from reviewing its Annual Reporting Measures over the past three years?
Discuss any emerging, long-term, expected, or unexpected trends? Discuss any programmatic/provider-wide changes being planned as a result of these data? Are benchmarks available for comparison? Are measures widely shared? How? With whom?
Candidate Recruitment and Selection: 2015-2018 completers had Praxis Core Reading, Writing and Math scores that are all higher than the state average. While the ACT/SAT scores do not exceed the state average, ETSU has adopted an admission policy that would require all scores to meet or exceed the state minimum and cohort averages for CAEP. Based on the 2019 performance report, ETSU has met the expectations for our admissions assessment inclusive of minimum and average GPA. Diversity, defined as race and ethnicity, is not a strength of our EPP. In the 2015-2018 completers, 96.8 % of the students were Caucasian. Per July 1, 2019 U.S. Census Bureau, Populations Estimates Program, in Washington County where ETSU is located, 91.4% of the population is Caucasian. Our demographics are reflective of the racial/ethnic diversity found in our region. In addition to the diversity data reported at the state level, ETSU is collecting information from our candidates related to 1st generation college student status and economic status. A Community Conversation focused on recruitment of candidates from diverse populations was held with a variety of stakeholders in our area (i.e., business leaders, school district administrators and teachers, workforce development officials and EPP faculty and staff). We also have formed a focus group for minority candidates and teachers to build supports for these professionals. We have also been funded two grants to target high need endorsement areas: special education (CILNT) and the STEM areas (NOYCE). Candidate Assessment: Candidates are assessed on the edTPA and Praxis II. Our EPP consistently has a slightly higher average than the state average for our edTPA score per TN Atlas. The average score for the edTPA for ETSU is 48.4 for the 2015-2018
Section 5. Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations
Summarize EPP activities and the outcomes of those activities as they relate to correcting the areas cited in the last Accreditation Action/Decision Report.
Section 6. Continuous Improvement
CAEP Standard 5
The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates' and completers' positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers' impact on P-12 student learning and development.
CAEP Standard 5, Component 5.3 The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.
6.1 Summarize any data-driven EPP-wide or programmatic modifications, innovations, or changes planned, worked on, or completed in the last academic year. This is an opportunity to share targeted continuous improvement efforts your EPP is proud of. Focus on one to three major efforts the EPP made and the relationship among data examined, changes, and studying the results of those changes.
Describe how the EPP regularly and systematically assessed its performance against its goals or the CAEP standards. What innovations or changes did the EPP implement as a result of that review? How are progress and results tracked? How will the EPP know the degree to which changes are improvements?
We use consistent measures across all initial level programs. InTASC standards and key stakeholder insights (LEA partners, students, completers) were used to develop and refine EPP constructed instruments (Standard 5.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3). At the advanced level, measures are individualized according to program needs and are developed in partnership with key stakeholders via advisory boards. We held 4 data meetings (Standard 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4) this year with faculty to review key assessment data. Data meetings allow faculty to analyze program data from the most recent cycle, compare data to past cycles, and to assess the effectiveness of action plans developed at prior data meetings. Select faculty and chairs participated in data review during LEA Network meetings (Standard 5.5, 2.2). Data are shared with partners, discussed, and plans are developed together to make improvements in programming and partnership initiatives.
Each year our candidates have improved their performance on the edTPA (Standard 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2). In 2018-2019, we added a edTPA coordinator who is a dynamic force (based on edTPA data in section 4.2) for candidates to improve performance on the edTPA and faculty and mentor teachers to improve their instruction and supports for candidates.
Praxis II scores were analyzed (Standard 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) and plans were made for need areas. While the findings are individualized across programs, strategies to address areas were similar. Strategies included infusing Praxis II- related content into exams and coursework, offering boot camps, considering timing of exam completion, and providing online resources. Programs recognized the need to identify candidates who may potentially struggle with Praxis II early and start supports earlier.
ETSU used a completer survey (Standard 1.1, 4.4, 5.1) and a survey of principals (Standard 1.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5) to assess completer and employer satisfaction. See findings in section 4.2. The surveys were designed with key stakeholders (LEA partners, completers, students, EPP faculty) based on InTASC standards and with additional feedback, these instruments continue to be reviewed to determine if there are more effective means for collecting data. For instance, we partnered with school systems to issue surveys to principals in an in-person format during principal meetings to increase the return rate. The Diversity Survey (Standard 2.1, 2.3) is used for each field experience. Candidates report on the types of diversity they encounter in placements. Data allow us to ensure that candidates are receiving at least one experience with P-12 students from the diversity areas and provides us with the data to share with our LEA partners for meeting candidates’ diversity needs. ELL continues to be a need area and as a result, we have identified districts with a higher % of ELL students to place our candidates and some programs have integrated other projects to increase exposure.
The following questions were created from the March 2016 handbook for initial-level programs sufficiency criteria for standard 5, component 5.3 and may be helpful in cataloguing continuous improvement.
What quality assurance system data did the provider review? What patterns across preparation programs (both strengths and weaknesses) did the provider identify? How did the provider use data/evidence for continuous improvement? How did the provider test innovations? What specific examples show that changes and program modifications can be linked back to evidence/data? How did the provider document explicit investigation of selection criteria used for Standard 3 in relation to candidate progress and completion? How did the provider document that data-driven changes are ongoing and based on systematic assessment of performance, and/or that innovations result in overall positive trends of improvement for EPPs, their candidates, and P-12 students?
The following thoughts are derived from the September 2017 handbook for advanced-level programs How was stakeholders' feedback and input sought and incorporated into the evaluation, research, and decision-making activities?
Candidates are assessed with the TEAM (Standard 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3), which was added based on LEA feedback (Standard 5.5). Findings are highly individualized across programs, yet there were several consistent findings. Many programs had candidates who excelled in environment, respectful culture, activities & materials, and lesson structure & pacing. Exemplary questioning was a common area for improvement. Last year the early childhood program recognized this as an area of need and they implemented an increased focus of this area in coursework and field experiences, which resulted in program improvement. The continuous improvement process allows programs to look at each cycle of data separately or together to analyze trends to make plans that benefit their candidates in future years. At LEA Network meetings, key stakeholders expressed gratitude for our EPP using the TEAM. They indicated that our completers come in far more prepared to meet the evaluation methods in their districts since implementing the TEAM as a key assessment.
In the Fall 2018, we refined our lesson plan template with our LEA partners (Standard 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.4) through survey and collaborative meetings. Training was conducted with faculty on the refined template. Calibration training has continued on an annual basis. Based on student and supervisor feedback, revisions to the lesson plan template are under revision as a part of our continuous improvement process.
The Educator Disposition Assessment (Standard 3.3, 3.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) is completed by supervisors with mentor teacher feedback. Since being trained initially, calibration trainings have continued on an annual basis. Strengths and areas of need varied among programs. Programs highlighted ways to improve candidates’ dispositions in their action plans. Sample plans include reflection assignments, additional feedback on oral communication during field observations, discussion board assignments, self-evaluation and peer-evaluation activities to target key disposition attributes noted in the EDA.
Given some system changes, a new method of collecting candidate demographic data (i.e., overall GPA, Gender, Race/ethnicity, financial aid status, 1st generation college student status, transfer student status, high school, rural status) was established with EPP faculty, staff, and candidates (Standard 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3). A partnership between professional advisors, the residency staff and the certification staff will facilitate candidate collection of data to note demonstration of candidates having met admission criteria (Standard 3). Programs will review the data and determine areas for improvement and future goals for recruitment and selection of quality candidates at an upcoming data meeting. LEA partners have expressed less of a desire to evaluate GPA and test requirements as they have stated that they give more weight to their interview processes. However, they are interested in the racial demographics of our candidates. Together, we have expressed a desire to see more diversity in our programs and schools.
Given the desire for more diversity in our programs, business leaders, students, completers, LEA teachers and administrators, and community leaders joined together for a Community Conversation on recruitment into the teaching profession with an emphasis on recruitment of candidates from diverse populations. Many marketing and programmatic initiatives were outlined at that meeting. Some of those ideas have been on standstill given COVID-19. However one of our completers who is a school board member has been running a focus group with minority candidates and teachers. This group wishes to formalize to become a place of support for its members.
The 2019 Educator Preparation Report Card has been shared widely in the newspaper, website, newsletter, emails to partners, and social media. We received a rating of exceeds expectations with provider impact and employment as strengths. Our candidate profile rating was scored as does not meet expectations. Improvements areas include diversity and candidates entering high need endorsement areas. Outreach initiatives in section 4.2 as well as above with the Community Conversation are underway to recruit diverse students. We were funded a NOYCE grant that will fund STEM-focused candidates and a personnel preparation grant in special education to meet high need endorsement areas.
In 2018-2020, we have tested innovations (Standard 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.4, 5.3) in Clinical Partnerships and Practice (Standard 2). We started a Kingsport Academy for Teaching (KAT). During their year-long clinical residency, candidates receive an enhanced residency experience. Participants are co-selected by the LEA and EPP. Once selected for the program, the candidate receives a LEA mentor who guides them including serving as a substitute teacher, co-teaching in a classroom, or working with administrator/faculty/staff on a special project. The KAT participants receives $2000 funded by the LEA. Feedback has been positive from all key stakeholders and expansion efforts are underway
In Spring 2019 and 2020, we implemented the Candidate to Substitute program. Candidates in Residency II can apply to substitute. The candidate receives the substitute training and are prioritized for subbing in their residency placements, then their residency school, and finally the district to meet district and student experience needs.
We continue to expand upon the instructional experiences and supports that are provided to our candidates for the edTPA. Our edTPA coordinator provided workshops (i.e., live and online), bootcamps, and a social media presence. Our edTPA scores continue to meet and often times exceed the required passing scores.
Technology is a target area for innovations. Given COVID-19, partnerships between school districts, EPP faculty and students and parents of children in the community have formed to meet the online instructional needs of children in our region. For instance, we formed a Homework Hotline that assigned candidates with schools districts to help students with their instructional needs and will continue beyond COVID-19. A Facebook resource run by EPP Faculty and students was formed to provide ETSU Education Support. An online community of learning was developed for teachers and parents of students with severe disabilities to share successes, challenges and resources in serving children online through weekly meetings. We also held a Virtual Career Fair to assist our candidates in getting jobs during the pandemic.
Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the data or changes apply.
1.1 Understanding of InTASC Standards 1.2 Use of research and evidence to measure students' progress 1.3 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge 1.4 All P-12 students afforded access to college- and career-ready standards. 1.5 Model and apply technology standards 2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 partnerships 2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators 2.3 Partners design high-quality clinical experiences 3.1 Recruits and supports high-quality and diverse candidate pool 3.2 Sets selective admission requirements 3.3 Monitors attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability 3.4 Creates and monitors candidate progress 3.5 Candidate positive impacts on P-12 students 3.6 Candidates understand the expectation of the profession 4.1 Completer impact on student growth and learning 4.2 Completer effectiveness via observations and/or student surveys 4.3 Employer satisfaction 4.4 Completer satisfaction 5.1 Effective quality assurance system that monitors progress using multiple measures 5.2 Quality assurance system relies on measures yielding reliable, valid, and actionable data. 5.3 Results for continuous program improvement are used 5.4 Measures of completer impact are analyzed, shared and used in decision-making 5.5 Relevant stakeholders are involved in program evaluation A.1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions A.1.2 Professional Responsibilities A.2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation A.5.4 Continuous Improvement x.1 Diversity x.2 Technology
Upload data results or documentation of data-driven changes.
20182019CAEP_ANNUAL_REPORT_Information_for_the_CC_website.docx
6.2 Would the provider be willing to share highlights, new initiatives, assessments, research, scholarship, or se activities during a CAEP Conference or in other CAEP Communications?
Yes No
6.3 Optional Comments
Section 7: Transition In the transition from legacy standards and principles to the CAEP standards, CAEP wishes to support a succe transition to CAEP Accreditation. The EPP Annual Report offers an opportunity for rigorous and thoughtful r regarding progress in demonstrating evidence toward CAEP Accreditation. To this end, CAEP asks for the fol
information so that CAEP can identify areas of priority in providing guidance to EPPs.
7.1 Assess and identify gaps (if any) in the EPP’s evidence relating to the CAEP standards and the progres on addressing those gaps. This is an opportunity to share the EPP’s assessment of its evidence. It may help the Readiness for Accreditation Self-Assessment Checklist, the CAEP Accreditation Handbook (for initial lev programs), or the CAEP Handbook: Guidance on Self-Study Reports for Accreditation at the Advanced Level
If there are no identified gaps, click the box next to "No identified gaps" and proceed to question 7.2.
No identified gaps
If there are identified gaps, please summarize the gaps and any steps planned or taken toward the gap(s) to be prepared by your CAEP site visit in the text box below and tag the standard or component to which the text ap
Presently there are gaps in our systematic collection of data for our advanced level programs, although improvements in the planning have been made over the past year. Our EPP faculty and leadership for the advanced level programs continue to meet and work on a plan to address needed standards (i.e., A.4.1, A.4.2, A.5.1, A.5.2, A.5.4, A.5.5). Within the plan of action, programs are developing EPP created instruments and reframing data that are collected into a manner that is ready for public display. Each advanced level program has outlined their own list of assessments that address the standards so the process is highly individualized.
Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the text applies.
A.4.1 Satisfaction of Employers A.4.2 Satisfaction of Completers A.5.1 Quality and Strategic Evaluation A.5.2 Quality and Strategic Evaluation A.5.4 Continuous Improvement A.5.5 Continuous Improvement
7.2 I certify to the best of my knowledge that the EPP continues to meet legacy NCATE Standards or TEAC Q Principles, as applicable.
Yes No
7.3 If no, please describe any changes that mean that the EPP does not continue to meet legacy NCATE Stand TEAC Quality Principles, as applicable.
Section 8: Preparer's Authorization
Preparer's authorization. By checking the box below, I indicate that I am authorized by the EPP to complete the 2020 EPP Annual Report.
I am authorized to complete this report.
Report Preparer's Information
Name: Cynthia Chambers
Phone: 4234397586
E-mail: chamberc@etsu.edu
I understand that all the information that is provided to CAEP from EPPs seeking initial accreditation, continuing accreditation or having completed the accreditation process is considered the property of CAEP and may be used for training, research and data review. CAEP reserves the right to compile and issue data derived from accreditation documents.
CAEP Accreditation Policy
Policy 6.01 Annual Report
An EPP must submit an Annual Report to maintain accreditation or accreditation-eligibility. The report is opened for data entry each year in January. EPPs are given 90 days from the date of system availability to complete the report.
CAEP is required to collect and apply the data from the Annual Report to:
1. Monitor whether the EPP continues to meet the CAEP Standards between site visits. 2. Review and analyze stipulations and any AFIs submitted with evidence that they were addressed. 3. Monitor reports of substantive changes. 4. Collect headcount completer data, including for distance learning programs. 5. Monitor how the EPP publicly reports candidate performance data and other consumer information on its website.
CAEP accreditation staff conduct annual analysis of AFIs and/or stipulations and the decisions of the Accreditation Council to assess consistency.
Failure to submit an Annual Report will result in referral to the Accreditation Council for review. Adverse action may result.
Policy 8.05 Misleading or Incorrect Statements
The EPP is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of all information submitted by the EPP for accreditation purposes, including program reviews, self-study reports, formative feedback reports and addendums and site visit report responses, and information made available to prospective candidates and the public. In particular, information displayed by the EPP pertaining to its accreditation and Title II decision, term, consumer information, or candidate performance (e.g., standardized test results, job placement rates, and licensing examination rates) must be accurate and current.
When CAEP becomes aware that an accredited EPP has misrepresented any action taken by CAEP with respect to the EPP and/or its accreditation, or uses accreditation reports or materials in a false or misleading manner, the EPP will be contacted and directed to issue a corrective communication. Failure to correct misleading or inaccurate statements can lead to adverse action.