the university of tennessee at martin · percentage passed plt 7-12 95.2% 100.0% 94.4% 98.1% 97.7%...

1

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN

EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM

2018-19 DATA GUIDEBOOK

2

Contents 2018 Tennessee Department of Education Annual Report Card ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Description ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Domain 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Domain 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Domain 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Domain 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Domain 5 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Traditional Licensure Completer Breakout ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Job-Embedded Completer Breakout .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21

2019 Tennessee Teacher Preparation Report Card ............................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Profile (UTM EPP) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Overview (UTM EPP) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Candidate Profile (UTM EPP) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Employment (UTM EPP) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Provider Impact (UTM EPP) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Candidate Assessment (UTM EPP) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Satisfaction (UTM EPP) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Overview of 2019 Report Card Changes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 26

2016-2019 Completer Data .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Undergraduate and Initial Licensure.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28

Job-Embedded ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

PRAXIS TESTING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

2017-19 Student Teaching Admission/Praxis Data ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38

2018-19 Praxis Pass Rates .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43

Overall ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43

3

Completers vs. Non-Completers .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Campus and Program ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

By Admission Type ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

edTPA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67

2017-19 TVAAS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

Overall ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

ACT/GPA Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70

Licensure Type Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71

Traditional Student Teaching Completers ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 72

ACT/GPA Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72

TVAAS Score Breakdown ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 73

Admit Type Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Campus Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75

CAEP/AIMS Annual Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 76

2020 CAEP/AIMS Annual Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

SKYFACTOR SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 79

ALUMNI SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79

Top Priority ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

Maintain or Improve ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81

Monitor .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82

Institution Specific Questions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 83

Exit Survey .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Top Priority ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Maintain or Improve ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Monitor .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88

Employer Survey ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 89

4

Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher Survey Report ............................................................................................................................................................... 91

TQP Grant Goals/Learning Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 92

LiveText Key Assessments ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Educator Disposition Assessment ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Overall ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 93

Candidate Self-Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 94

Cooperating Teachers .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 96

University Supervisors .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98

TEAM Evaluations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 100

Overall .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100

University Supervisors .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101

Cooperating Teachers .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 105

TDOE TEAM Evaluation Initial Licensure Route ........................................................................................................................................................................... 108

Evaluations for Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors ................................................................................................................................................. 110

School Counseling Data ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 111

Instructional Leadership Data .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112

2018-19 UTM EPP Strengths ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 113

Continuous Improvement Goals of 2018-19 and Achievement .......................................................................................................................................................... 114

Continuous Improvement Goals for CAEP 2025 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 115

5

2018 Tennessee Department of Education Annual Report Card

Description Annual Reports are more extensive than the TN Teacher Preparation Report Card. Each domain has accountability metrics. Those metrics have benchmark

criteria to be met set by the state. Aggregates performance within and across domains to determine whether an EPP meets domain-specific and overall

expectations. EPP’s that have 2 consecutive performance reports that do not meet expectations will be engaged in an interim review process. UTM met

expectations for all 5 domains. Data contains 2014-17 completers.

Domain 1 Benchmark 1: 95% of UG candidates admitted by passing score on ACT or all 3 CORE.

• Undergraduate (UG) percentage with ACT 21+

o UTM UG vs. State UG

▪ 2014-15: 78.4%, 79.9%

▪ 2015-16: 79.3%, 83.8%

▪ 2016-17: 78.4%, 89.7%

o UG data is the only one worth mentioning because it is what we can control. Job-embedded practitioners (JEP) come to us with no control over

their ACT.

o Under state’s UG average, which has increased every year.

o Will take a few years for our new admission requirement to show up on annual report.

UTM Average State Average 2014-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State Gain/Loss

Admission Assessment

Percentage with ACT of 21+ 78.4% 79.3% 78.4% 79.9% 83.8% 89.7% 361 78.7% 84.1% -5.4%

Average GRE Composite Score 10 989.30

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Reading 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9% 98.6% 95 100.0% 99.1% 0.9%

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Writing 100.0% 57.1% 78.6% 98.7% 94.8% 92.9% 87 86.2% 95.7% -9.5%

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Math 100.0% 57.1% 82.8% 99.4% 92.0% 88.8% 83 86.7% 93.8% -7.1%

6

Benchmark 2: 95% of UG candidates admitted with 2.75+ GPA. Average UG GPA at completion must be 3.0+. Percentage of candidates with 2.75+ UG GPA at

admission 99.7%.

UTM Average State Average 2014-17

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State Gain/Loss

Percentage of candidates with 2.75+ undergraduate GPA 99.5% 99.4% 100.0% 94.4% 93.9% 95.9% 555 99.6% 94.5% 5.1%

Average undergraduate GPA 3.41 3.41 3.38 3.44 3.44 555 3.39 3.39

7

Benchmark 3: Underrepresented race at 22% or increase over a 3-yr period.

• Increase in underrepresented race/ethnicity over 3-year period.

o 5.4% increase (5.1% to 10.5%). State increased 1.5%. (13.7 to 15.2%).

o Growth can be attributed to both clinical types.

▪ UG increased 2.5% (4.8% to 7.3%). State has decreased 1.6%.

▪ JEP increased 6.3% (7.1% to 15.5%).

o Growth can also be attributed to increase in African American completers, especially at the JEP clinical type, over three-year period.

▪ UTM overall 5.3% increase (4.6% to 9.9%).

▪ UG increased 2.2% (4.2% to 6.4%). State decreased 1% (5% to 4%).

▪ JEP increased 8.4% (7.1% to 15.5%). State increased 2.2% (19.3% to 21.5%).



Percentage of Completers in Underrepresented Race/Ethnicity 5.1% 8.5% 10.5% 13.7% 15.9% 15.2% 541 7.9% 14.9% -7.0%

8

Benchmark 4: 22%+ male completers or increase over a 3-yr period.

• Male completers a strength over 3-year period.

o UTM three-year average is 30.6% compared to the state 23.2%. State is in a declining trend where UTM is holding steady.

o Need to watch this as time goes.

▪ JEP has decreased 11.8% (52.6% to 40.8%). State JEP also decreased 3.2% (34.7% to 31.5%).

▪ UG maintained (27.6% to 27.3%) with 2015-16 20.2% completers effecting UG numbers negatively. State decreased 1% (20.4% to

19.4%).

UTM Average State Average 2014-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State Gain/Loss Percentage of Male Completers 32.2% 26.5% 32.6% 23.8% 22.9% 22.8% 555 30.6% 23.2% 7.4%

9

Benchmark 5: High needs endorsement area completers (STEM, SPED, Languages) percentage is either in the upper quartile of the state or show an increase

over a 3-yr period.

• Increase in high-need endorsements over 3-year period.

o UTM increased 5.7% (12% to 17.7%)

o Growth is because of JEP and not UG.

▪ UG decreased 1.8% (8.2% to 6.4%).

▪ JEP increased 6.3% (28.9% to 35.2%). State decreased 3.3% (47.2% to 44.9%).



Percentage of Completers Endorsed in High-Needs Subject Area 12.0% 15.7% 17.7% 26.3% 26.4% 28.2% 555 15.0% 27.0% -12.0%

10

Domain 2 Benchmark: 85% employed for at least 2 out of 3 years post completion (Any two-year employment)

• Strong Employment and Retention numbers, all above state averages

o Any year employment rate 7% higher than state (86.3%, 79.3%)

▪ UTM percentages stayed the same over three year (84.2% to 84.5%), where state has decreased (80.9% to 76.2%)

o First year employment increased 11.2% over 3 years (73.3% to 84.5%).

▪ 81.8% average is 6.1% higher than state average of 75.7%.

o Any two-year employment rate is right at state average (94.8% UTM, 94.6% State).

▪ Both have positive trends in the 3-year period.

o All three-year employment rate is 3.1% higher than the state (UTM 95.3%, State 92.2%)

▪ Both have negative trend over two-year period. Worth watching.

o Why is JEP any year and first year not 100%? JEP must be teaching in order to be JEP clinical experience.

o UG completers of UTM have a high 1st year employment rate

▪ 75.8% compared to the state 67.7%, an 8.1% difference.

▪ Two-year trend is worth watching for first year and any year employment rate, as both UTM and the state percentages dropped

significantly (UTM 11.4%, State 6.4%).



Any year employment rate 84.2% 90.9% 84.5% 80.9% 80.9% 76.2% 548 86.3% 79.3% 7.0%

First year employment rate 73.3% 89.1% 84.5% 73.4% 77.7% 76.1% 548 81.8% 75.7% 6.1%

Any two-year employment rate 89.1% 100.0% 100.0% 91.2% 97.7% 97.3% 345 94.8% 94.6% 0.2%

All three-year employment rate 95.9% 92.9% 92.8% 89.8% 190 95.3% 92.2% 3.1%

11

Domain 3 Benchmark: 90% of completers pass identified Praxis II test by 2nd attempt. UTM met expectation in this domain.



Pedagogical Assessment

Percentage passed PLT Early childhood 100.0% 97.1% 15 100.0% 97.6% 2.4%

Percentage passed PLT 5-9 88.5% 95.0% 100.0% 97.2% 97.5% 98.2% 60 93.3% 97.5% -4.2%


Percentage passed PLT K-6 98.8% 98.7% 94.2% 98.5% 98.9% 98.7% 227 97.4% 98.7% -1.3%

Literacy Assessment

Percentage passed Reading Elementary Ed 98.0% 100.0% 91.8% 98.8% 98.2% 98.2% 282 96.8% 98.4% -1.6%

Specialty Area Assessment

Percentage passed Agriculture 12 83.3% 89.7% -6.4%

Percentage passed Art Content Analysis 14 92.9% 88.8% 4.1%

Percentage passed Biology Content Knowledge 13 92.3% 95.4% -3.1%

Percentage passed Education of Young Children 100.0% 99.2% 31 100.0% 99.2% 0.8%

Percentage passed Elementary Education Content Knowledge 97.3% 97.1% 100.0% 98.6% 96.1% 99.0% 209 98.1% 97.9% 0.2%

Percentage passed Elementary Ed Curriculum, Instruct, Assessment 93.8% 100.0% 98.2% 96.5% 98.6% 99.3% 177 97.2% 98.0% -0.8%

Percentage passed Health Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.7% 28 100.0% 99.2% 0.8%

Percentage passed Math Content Knowledge 11 63.6% 87.9% -24.3%

Percentage passed Middle School Content Knowledge 100.0% 99.4% 62 98.8% 98.2% 0.6%

Percentage passed Music Content and Instruction 85.7% 89.1% 30 86.7% 92.7% -6.0%

12

Percentage passed Phys Ed Content and Design 83.3% 76.5% 88.1% 90.7% 44 81.8% 89.2% -7.4%

Percentage passed Spanish World Lang 14 85.7% 90.6% -4.9%

Percentage passed Spec Edu Core Knowledge and Mild to Mod 100.0% 100.0% 97.0% 97.4% 38 100.0% 98.0% 2.0%

Percentage passed World & US History Content Knowledge 27 100.0% 98.8% 1.3%

13

Domain 4 Do not believe this will exist in the coming years. It is not present this year.

Domain 5 This is reflected in the ‘Program Impact’ section in TN Report Card (TVAAS, TEAM, and LOE). Level of Effectiveness (LOE) is TEAM evaluation and TVAAS (growth

scores and individual achievement) combined.

Benchmark 1: 85% at or above Level 3+ LOE.

• 3+ Level Overall Effectiveness 3-year increase of 5.7% (89.8% to 95.5%) for UTM, while state trending down by 3.2% (94.9% to 91.7%)

o Big growth in Level 3 LOE completers (26.9% to 45.2%, 18.3% increase)

▪ More UTM completers moving from Level 2 LOE to Level 3 LOE, while state had increase in level 2 LOE.

▪ More UTM completers moved down from Level 4 to Level 3 LOE. State had larger decrease in Level 4 and 5 LOE to Level 3.

o UG showed largest 3-year growth in LOE (89.3% to 95.9%, 6.6% increase), with 2016-17 completers over state average (UTM 95.9%, State 93.1%)

o JEP is above state average (UTM 94.7%, State 93%). State is trending down over 3 year (96.5% to 89.9%).



Percentage of completers with Level 3+ Level Overall Effectiveness 89.8% 93.4% 95.5% 94.9% 93.2% 91.7% 884 92.1% 93.7% -1.6%

Percentage of Completers with Level Overall Effectiveness Level 1 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 884 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%



Percentage of Completers with Level Overall Effectiveness Level 4 42.9% 42.1% 32.3% 45.0% 43.7% 40.7% 884 40.7% 43.8% -3.1%


14

Benchmark 2: Percentage of TVAAS of Level 3+ meet or exceed state average.

• UTM’s Overall 3+ Level TVAAS completer average is greatly being affected by 2015-16 completers. State trending down over 3-year period (63.6% to

59.2%, 4.4% decrease).

o 2014-15: UTM 60%, State 63.6%

o 2015-16: UTM 37.7%, State 60.7%

o 2016-17: UTM 59.3%, State 59.2%

▪ 2016-17 UTM completers did beat the state average, which is the benchmark in this category.

o Large reason is the 2015-16 UTM UG completers (34%).

o State average 3-year trend is being affected by JEP (65.5% to 53.6%, 11.9% decrease).

o Level 2 and 3 TVAAS completers has increased, while Level 5 has decreased for UTM. The state has had increases Level 1, 2, and 3’s, while Level

4 and 5 have decreased. Lots of regression to the mean.



Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ TVAAS 60.0% 37.7% 59.3% 63.6% 60.7% 59.2% 195 52.8% 61.2% -8.4%

Percentage of Completers with TVAAS Level 1 35.0% 42.6% 29.6% 23.0% 25.4% 26.1% 195 35.9% 24.8% 11.1%

Percentage of Completers with TVAAS Level 2 5.0% 19.7% 11.1% 13.5% 13.9% 14.8% 195 11.3% 14.0% -2.7%




15

Benchmark 3: 90% of completers Level 3+.

• Overall Level 3+ observation scores have increased over the 3-year period for UTM, while the state has decreased.

o UTM 91.6% to 97.6%, 6% increase.

o State 95.7% to 94%, 1.7% decrease.

o Level 3 observation for UG and JEP is the largest category.

o JEP

▪ Level 2, 4, and 5 decreases for UTM and level 4 and 5 decreases for the state.

▪ Increase in level 3 for UTM and level 2 and 3 increases for the state.

o UG

▪ No level 1 observation scores for UTM.

▪ Decrease in Level 2, 4, and 5 for UTM and Level 3+, 4, and 5 decreases for the state.

▪ Increases in Level 3+, Level 3 for UTM and Level 2 and 3 for the state



Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ Observation 91.6% 96.6% 97.6% 95.7% 95.3% 94.0% 909 94.5% 95.2% -0.7%

Percentage of Completers with Observation Level 1 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 909 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%



Percentage of Completers with Observation Level 4 47.2% 43.5% 36.5% 48.0% 45.9% 42.7% 909 43.9% 46.3% -2.4%


16

Average Observation Domain Scores section has no benchmark. No state averages given this academic year.

• Observation Domains

o JEP averages higher observation scores than UG.

o Environment highest at 4.1

▪ Highest: Respectful culture-4.3

▪ Lowest: Realistic Expectations-3.9

o Instruction lowest at 3.5

▪ Highest: Content Knowledge-4.1

▪ Lowest: Questioning and Problem Solving-3.2

o Planning middle at 3.7

▪ Highest: Instructional Plans-4

▪ Lowest: Assessment-3.5

o JEP and UG disaggregation mirrors highest and lowest above.


Average Observation Domain Scores

Instruction 3.4 3.6 3.5 864 3.5 3.5

Planning 3.7 3.8 3.6 861 3.7 3.7

Environment 4.1 4.2 3.9 856 4.1 4.1

Average Observation Indicator Scores

Standards and Objectives 3.5 3.6 3.3 864 3.5 3.5

Motivating Students 3.7 3.9 3.5 864 3.7 3.7

Present Content 3.6 3.6 3.4 864 3.6 3.6

Lesson Structure and Pacing 3.4 3.5 3.2 864 3.4 3.4

Activities and Materials 3.6 3.7 3.5 864 3.6 3.6

Questioning 3.2 3.3 3.1 864 3.2 3.2

Academic Feedback 3.5 3.5 3.2 864 3.4 3.4

Grouping Students 3.4 3.4 3.3 864 3.4 3.4

Content Knowledge 4.1 4.2 4.0 864 4.1 4.1

Knowledge of Students 3.7 3.8 3.5 864 3.7 3.7

Thinking 3.3 3.3 3.2 864 3.3 3.3

Problem Solving 3.2 3.2 3.1 864 3.2 3.2

17

Instructional Plans 4.0 4.0 3.8 861 4 4

Student Work 3.8 3.8 3.7 861 3.8 3.8

Assessment 3.5 3.6 3.4 861 3.5 3.5

Expectations 3.9 4.0 3.8 856 3.9 3.9

Managing Student Behavior 3.9 4.1 3.8 856 4 4

Environment 4.2 4.3 4.1 856 4.2 4.2

Respectful Culture 4.2 4.4 4.1 856 4.3 4.3

18

Traditional Licensure Completer Breakout

Domain 5 UTM Average State Average 2014-17

Distribution of Observation Ratings

Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ Observation

90.5% 97.1% 97.6% 94.7% 95.2% 93.0% 619 93.7% 94.6% -0.90%

Percentage of Completers with Observation Level 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 619 0.0% 0.3% -0.25%


9.5% 2.9% 2.4% 5.1% 4.5% 6.9% 619 6.3% 5.2% 1.14%


32.0% 45.0% 59.8% 32.6% 37.6% 43.2% 619 40.1% 35.8% 4.27%


46.0% 39.7% 32.9% 46.5% 46.0% 42.5% 619 42.2% 45.7% -3.54%


12.5% 12.4% 4.9% 15.6% 11.6% 7.2% 619 11.5% 13.0% -1.52%


Instruction 3.5 3.5 3.3 593 3.5 3.5

Planning 3.7 3.7 3.5 591 3.7 3.7

Environment 4.1 4.1 3.8 589 4 4




Present Content 3.6 3.5 3.3 593 3.5 3.5



Questioning 3.2 3.3 3.2 593 3.2 3.2



Content Knowledge 4.1 4 3.8 593 4 4


Thinking 3.2 3.2 3.2 593 3.2 3.2

Problem Solving 3.2 3.1 3 593 3.1 3.1

Instructional Plans 4 4 3.9 591 3.9 3.9

Student Work 3.8 3.7 3.7 591 3.7 3.7

19

Assessment 3.5 3.5 3.4 591 3.5 3.5

Expectations 3.8 3.8 3.6 589 3.8 3.8

Managing Student Behavior 3.9 4 3.6 589 3.9 3.9

Environment 4.2 4.2 4 589 4.2 4.2



Domain 2 2014-15 2015-16 2016-

17 2014-

15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State

Gain/Loss

Any year employment rate 81.7% 87.8% 76.4% 75.7% 74.4% 68.0% 397 82.1% 73.0% 9.1%

First year employment rate 68.3% 85.4% 76.4% 65.5% 70.0% 67.9% 397 75.8% 67.7% 8.1%

Two-year employment rate 86.8% 100.0% 86.8% 97.2% 234 92.7% 91.9% 0.8%

Three-year employment rate 97.3% 95.2% 112 97.3% 95.2% 2.1%

Domain 3- Candidate Assessment


Domain 3 2014-15 2015-16 2016-

17 2014-

15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State

Gain/Loss

Pedagogical Assessment

Percentage passed PLT EC 100.0% 97.3% 28 100.0% 98.0% 2.0%

Percentage passed PLT K-6 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.6% 99.4% 201 100.0% 99.3% 0.7%



Literacy Assessment

Percentage passed Reading Elementary Ed 97.8% 100.0% 98.6% 98.8% 99.0% 99.2% 251 98.8% 99.0% -0.2%

Specialty Area Assessment

20

Percentage passed Art Content and Analysis 11 90.9% 94.9% -4.0%

Percentage passed Education of Young Children 100.0% 99.1% 30 100.0% 99.1% 0.9%

Percentage passed Elementary Education Content Knowledge 97.2% 97.0% 100.0% 98.5% 97.1% 98.9% 197 98.0% 98.2% -0.2%

Percentage passed Elementary Ed Curriculum, Instruct, Assessment 93.5% 100.0% 100.0% 96.3% 99.3% 99.8% 170 97.6% 98.2% -0.6%

Percentage passed Health Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.3% 100 100.0% 99.1% 0.9%

Percentage passed Middle School Content Knowledge 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 98.9% 99.3% 49 95.9% 97.9% -2.0%

Percentage passed Music Content and Instruction 84.6% 89.5% 27 88.9% 93.6% -4.7%

Percentage passed Phys Ed Content and Design 90.9% 100.0% 92.5% 97.1% 26 96.2% 95.7% 0.5%

Percentage passed Spanish World Language 0.0%

Percentage passed Spec Edu Core Knowledge and Mild to Mod 100.0% 100.0% 20 100.0% 99.8% 0.2%

Percentage passed World & US History Content Knowledge 24 100.0% 99.7% 0.3%

21

Job-Embedded Completer Breakout

DOMAIN 1 UTM Average State Average 2014-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 n= UTM State Gain/Loss

Admission Assessment

Percentage with ACT of 21+ 47.4% 74.2% 58.3% 70.9% 72.7% 75.0% 86 61.6% 76.1% -14.5%

Average GRE Composite Score 974 10

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Reading

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Writing

Percentage Passed Praxis CORE Math

Percentage of candidates with 2.75+ UG GPA

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.3% 85.0% 90.7% 151 100.0% 87.8% 12.2%

Average UG GPA 3.30 3.36 3.25 151 3.3 3.3

Race/Ethnicity

Percentage of completers African American

7.1% 12.2% 15.5% 19.3% 28.4% 21.5% 140 12.9% 23.0% -10.1%

Percentage of completers Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.0% 1.8% 140 0.0% 1.7% -1.7%

Percentage of completers Two or More Races

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.1% 140 0.0% 1.2% -1.2%

Percentage of completers Underrepresented Race/Ethnicity

7.1% 12.2% 15.5% 24.6% 35.0% 29.8% 140 12.9% 29.8% -16.9%

Percentage of completers Hispanic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.2% 5.0% 140 0.0% 3.5% -3.5%

Percentage of completers Native American/Alaskan Native

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 140 0.0% 0.4% -0.4%

Percentage of completers Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 140 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Percentage of completers White 92.9% 87.8% 84.5% 75.4% 65.0% 70.2% 140 87.1% 70.2% 16.9%

Gender

Percentage of completers Male 52.6% 45.2% 40.8% 34.7% 31.6% 31.5% 151 45.0% 32.6% 12.5%

Percentage of completers Female 47.4% 54.8% 59.2% 65.3% 68.4% 68.5% 151 55.0% 67.5% -12.5%

High Needs Endorsement Areas

Percentage of completers endorsed in high need areas

28.9% 31.0% 35.2% 47.2% 42.1% 44.9% 151 32.5% 44.7% -12.2%

22

DOMAIN 3 UTM Average State Average 2014-17


Any year employment rate 94.7% 100.0% 97.2% 94.7% 96.3% 93.11 151 97.4% 94.6% 2.8%

First year employment rate 94.7% 100.0% 97.2% 93.5% 96.0% 93.11 151 97.4% 94.1% 3.3%

Two-year employment rate 97.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 98.9% 97.32 111 99.1% 98.2% 0.9%

Three-year employment rate 91.7% 92.9% 87.6% 89.8% 78 92.3% 88.6% 3.7%

Domain 5

Distribution of Overall Evaluation Ratings

Percentage of completers with Level 3+ Level Overall Effectiveness

92.0% 96.5% 95.1% 96.5% 91.7% 89.9% 281 94.7% 93.0% 1.7%

Percentage of Completers with Level Overall Effectiveness Level 1

0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 281 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%

Percentage of Completers with Level Overall Effectiveness Level 2 8.0% 2.7% 4.9% 3.6% 7.9%

10.0% 281 5.0% 6.8% -1.8%


19.5% 27.4% 46.9% 25.1% 34.3% 38.7% 281 30.6% 31.9% -1.3%


47.1% 41.6% 32.1% 45.5% 40.3% 36.9% 281 40.6% 41.4% -0.8%


25.3% 27.4% 16.0% 25.8% 17.2% 14.3% 281 23.5% 19.7% 3.8%

Distribution of TVAAS Ratings

Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ TVAAS

53.8% 50.0% 60.0% 65.5% 61.3% 53.6% 47 55.3% 59.5% -4.2%

Percentage of Completers with TVAAS Level 1

46.2% 35.7% 25.0% 22.8% 26.9% 30.1% 47 64.0% 27.0% 37.0%


0.0% 14.3% 15.0% 11.7% 11.8% 16.3% 47 10.6% 13.5% -2.9%


23.1% 21.4% 35.0% 28.3% 30.8% 33.8% 47 27.7% 31.3% -3.6%


7.7% 0.0% 10.0% 10.3% 10.4% 6.7% 47 6.4% 8.9% -2.5%

23


23.1% 28.6% 15.0% 26.9% 20.2% 13.1% 47 21.3% 19.3% 2.0%


Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ Observation

95.5% 95.6% 97.7% 97.8% 95.4% 94.9% 290 96.2% 96.1% 0.1%


1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 290 0.7% 0.3% 0.5%


3.4% 4.4% 1.1% 2.0% 4.3% 4.9% 290 3.1% 3.6% -0.5%


29.2% 22.1% 48.9% 23.7% 33.0% 42.7% 290 32.4% 32.2% 0.2%


51.7% 50.4% 39.8% 50.1% 45.6% 42.3% 290 47.6% 46.4% 1.2%


14.6% 23.0% 9.1% 24.0% 16.7% 9.9% 290 16.2% 17.6% -1.4%


Instruction 3.7 3.8 3.5 271 3.7 3.7

Planning 3.8 3.9 3.6 270 3.8 3.8

Environment 4.3 4.5 4.1 267 4.3 4.3




Present Content 3.7 4 3.5 271 3.5 3.5



Questioning 3.3 3.3 3.1 271 3.2 3.2



Content Knowledge 4.4 4.5 4.1 271 4.4 4.4

Knowledge of Students 4 4 3.6 271 3.9 3.9

Thinking 3.4 3.4 3.2 271 3.4 3.4

Problem Solving 3.4 3.3 3.2 271 3.3 3.3

Instructional Plans 4 4.1 3.8 270 4 4

Student Work 3.7 3.9 3.7 270 3.8 3.8

24

Assessment 3.5 3.7 3.5 270 3.6 3.6

Expectations 4 4.1 3.9 267 4 4

Managing Student Behavior 4 4.4 4 267 4.1 4.1

Environment 4.2 4.4 4.1 267 4.3 4.3


25

2019 Tennessee Teacher Preparation Report Card

The Educator Preparation Report Card presents data on the State Board’s key priority areas for preparing educators for Tennessee: recruiting strong, diverse

candidates to teach in the areas of greatest need; employment and retention in Tennessee public schools; strong teaching performance; and effectively

supporting our students’ learning.

The 2019 TN Preparation Report Card consist of 2015-18 completers, like the Annual Reports. UTM focuses more on the Annual Report data, as it gives a much

more thorough picture of the program, whereas the Report Card gives a smaller snapshot that is not always helpful for program improvement.

Profile (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/profile

Overview (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/overview

Candidate Profile (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/candidate-profile

Employment (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/employment

Provider Impact (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/provider-impact

Candidate Assessment (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/candidate-assessment

Satisfaction (UTM EPP) https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/satisfaction

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/profile

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/overview

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/candidate-profile

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/employment

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/provider-impact

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/candidate-assessment

https://teacherprepreportcard.tn.gov/teacher-prep/1844-T/satisfaction

26

Overview of 2019 Report Card Changes

28

2016-2019 Completer Data

Undergraduate and Initial Licensure UTM continued to see an increase in completers from 2017-18 to 2018-19. The GPA before Student Teaching increased by 0.2 points again this year. Major GPA increased 0.04 points while Final GPA remained flat at 3.51. Of those who were full admits, they averaged almost a 24.3 ACT composite. UTM did see an increase in appeals from 19 in 2017-18 to 23 in 2018-19, and within those completers who were admitted by appeal, they had lower GPA’s at admission to the program and lower ACT composite score, but maintained the same GPA before Student Teaching and Final GPA as the previous year’s appeal students. The 2018-19 appeal students also had higher (+0.17 points) Major GPAs than the 2017-18 appeals group of students. Completer data also provides UTM predictive analysis for what is to come on Domain 1 TDOE Annual Reports and TN Report Card Candidate Profile. Overall

Year Completers GPA Admission EPP GPA Before Student Teaching Final GPA Major GPA ACT Composite

2018-19 132 (+1) 3.32 (-.01) 3.47 (+.02) 3.51 (0) 3.65 (+.04) 22.93 (-.47)

2017-18 131 (+12) 3.33 (0) 3.45 (+.02) 3.51 (+.04) 3.61 (+.05) 23.4 (+.58)

2016-17 119 (-5) 3.33 (+.04) 3.43 (+.08) 3.47 (+.02) 3.56 22.82 (-.28)

29

Disaggregated by Admit Type

Regular Admits


2018-19 100 (-2) 3.36 (0) 3.50 (+.02) 3.55 (+.02) 3.67 (+.04) 24.31 (-.18)

2017-18 102 3.36 3.48 3.53 3.63 24.49

3/3 CORE

CORE is a series (Reading, Writing, and Math) of remediation tests for those who score less than a 22 on the ACT. Students can either take the residual ACT or

take CORE tests if below a 22 ACT.


2018-19 10 (0) 3.34 (-.15) 3.53 (+.01) 3.57 (-.02) 3.61 (-.07) 19.9 (-.85)

2017-18 10 3.49 3.52 3.59 3.69 20.75

Appeals

Year Appeals by Completers

GPA Admission EPP GPA Before Student Teaching Final GPA Major GPA ACT Composite

2018-19 23 (+4) 3.11 (-.03) 3.29 (0) 3.34 (0) 3.62 (+.17) 18.87 (-.23)

2017-18 19 (+4) 3.14 (-.09) 3.29 (-.06) 3.34 (-.04) 3.45 (-.02) 19.1 (+.1)

2016-17 15 3.23 3.35 3.38 3.47 19.0

30

Disaggregated by Program

2018-19

Licensure Area

Co

mp

lete

rs

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Cau

casi

an

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

His

pan

ic

GP

A M

ajo

r

GP

A A

dm

issi

on

GP

A S

T

GP

A F

inal

AC

T

Ap

pe

als

Middle Grades English 6-8 1 1 1 3.93 4.00 3.97 3.98 24

Middle Grades Social Studies 6-8 3 2 1 3 3.51 3.13 3.49 3.50 29

Middle Grades Math 6-8 4 1 3 4 3.54 3.13 3.35 3.40 22.8 1

Business 7-12 2 1 1 2 3.84 3.42 3.58 3.61 25.5

Dance K-12 1 1 1 4.00 2.78 2.82 2.91

Early Childhood PreK-3 13 13 11 1 1 3.75 3.29 3.49 3.53 23.7 2

Elementary K-5 65 1 64 63 1 1 3.61 3.29 3.44 3.48 22.2 14

English 6-12 11 4 7 11 3.76 3.45 3.55 3.67 25.7 1

French 6-12 1 1 1 3.93 3.84 3.86 3.83 25

Government 6-12 1 1 1 3.55 3.50 3.52 3.56 17 1

Mathematics 6-12 2 2 2 3.25 3.06 3.14 3.21 22.5

History 6-12 5 4 1 5 0 3.76 3.27 3.63 3.69 23.8 1

Vocal or Instrumental/General Music K-12 8 3 5 7 1 3.73 3.64 3.63 3.66 24.6

Spanish 6-12 3 1 2 3 3.58 3.26 3.46 3.51 25.7

Health and Human Performance K-12 4 2 2 3 1 3.48 2.94 3.03 3.10 18 3

Special Education K-12 5 2 3 5 3.75 3.18 3.45 3.50 21.5

Visual Art K-12 1 1 1 3.82 3.69 3.69 3.71 21

Vocational Agriculture 7-12 3 1 2 3 3.86 3.66 3.56 3.61 23.7

31

2017-18

Licensure Area

Co

mp

lete

rs

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Cau

casi

an

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

GP

A M

ajo

r

GP

A A

dm

issi

on

GP

A S

T

GP

A F

inal

AC

T

Ap

pe

als

Biology 7-12 1 1 1 3.56 3.95 3.61 3.64 28

Business 7-12 1 1 1 3.47 2.87 3.25 3.32 22

Dance K-12 2 2 2 4.00 3.62 3.58 3.62 27

Early Childhood PreK-3 6 6 5 1 3.69 3.37 3.52 3.56 21 2

Elementary K-5 44 1 43 42 2 3.66 3.34 3.53 3.57 22.84 7

English 7-12 7 1 6 7 3.73 3.57 3.51 3.63 25.71

Family Consumer Science K-12 4 4 3 1 3.74 3.31 3.50 3.55 24.67

Government 6-12 2 2 2 3.53 2.97 3.13 3.20 23

Mathematics 6-12 4 2 2 4 3.33 3.79 3.64 3.67 27

History 7-12 10 9 1 10 3.27 2.96 3.13 3.21 10 2

Vocal or Instrumental/General Music K-12 10 4 6 10 3.48 3.19 3.32 3.37 24.8

Middle Grades 4-8 15 3 12 14 1 3.53 3.49 3.56 3.60 23.67 2

Health and Human Performance K-12 10 6 4 10 3.80 3.33 3.49 3.49 21.7 3

Special Education K-12 7 7 7 3.58 3.26 3.43 3.48 23 3

Visual Art K-12 2 2 2 3.94 3.72 3.64 3.67 25.5

Vocational Agriculture 7-12 6 2 4 6 3.57 2.97 3.14 3.22 23.17

32

2016-17

Licensure Area

Co

mp

lete

rs

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Cau

casi

an

Afr

ican

Am

eri

can

GP

A M

ajo

r

GP

A A

dm

issi

on

GP

A S

T

GP

A F

inal

AC

T

Biology 7-12 2 2 2 3.41 3.83 3.65 3.68 25

Business 7-12 1 1 1 3.80 3.57 3.80 3.83

Dance K-12 2 1 1 2 4.00 3.83 3.86 3.87 23

Early Childhood PreK-3 6 6 4 2 3.40 3.11 3.24 3.28 22.5

Earth Space Science 7-12 1 1 1 3.35 3.82 3.66 3.69 27

Elementary K-6 52 2 50 51 1 3.61 3.33 3.49 3.53 22.5

English 7-12 4 2 2 3 1 3.66 3.37 3.45 3.50 22.75

Family Consumer Science K-12 3 3 2 1 3.45 3.37 3.34 3.39 22

Mathematics 6-12 1 1 1 3.00 2.84 3.04 3.09 20

History 7-12 7 6 1 7 3.32 3.31 3.29 3.34 21.85

Vocal or Instrumental/General Music K-12 7 5 2 7 3.46 3.23 3.27 3.34 26.29

Middle Grades 4-8 13 4 9 13 3.50 3.38 3.43 3.47 23.5

Physical Education & Wellness K-12 10 9 1 8 2 3.62 3.16 3.29 3.35 20.1

Spanish 7-12 1 1 1 3.76 3.45 3.75 3.77 25

Special Education K-12 3 3 3 3.66 3.23 3.43 3.48 22

Visual Art K-12 4 4 4 3.56 3.36 3.34 3.39 25.25

Vocational Agriculture 7-12 2 2 2 3.88 3.75 3.63 3.68 25

33

Job-Embedded UTM had a slight decrease (4%) in the number of job-embedded completers from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Reported GPA for undergraduate is higher, but

transitional licensure GPA decreased. Male completers decreased from 51.8% to 42.6%. 20% of the 2018-19 completers were from high-need licensure areas

(math, special education, and foreign language).

Year Completers Male Female Caucasian Black Hispanic Mixed UG GPA Transitional

Licensure GPA

2018-19 54 23 31 47 7 0 0 3.21 3.54

2017-18 56 29 27 43 9 2 2 3.18 3.69

2016-17 55 20 35 43 10 2 0 3.27 3.63

2015-16 46 22 24 37 8 1 0 3.23 3.51

Disaggregated by Program

2018-19

Licensure Area Completers Male Female Caucasian Black Hispanic Mixed UG

GPA

Transitional

Licensure GPA

Biology 6-12 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.13 3.29

Chemistry 6-12 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 3.22 3.81

English 6-12 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 2.87 3.56

Business 6-12 7 3 4 6 1 0 0 3.35 3.74

History 6-12 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2.71 3.31

Math 6-12 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 3.37 3.96

Spanish 6-12 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3.84 3.83

Agriculture 6-12 3 1 2 3 0 0 0 2.98 3.44

FCS 6-12 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 3.41 3.53

PE K-12 6 5 0 5 0 0 0 2.92 3.56

34

PreK-3 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2.97 3.60

K-5 5 0 5 4 1 0 0 3.48 3.70

MG 6-8 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 3.10 3.47

Special Education K-12 6 1 5 5 1 0 0 3.43 3.30

English 2nd Language 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Music K-12 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2.88 3.07

Marketing 9-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Art 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 3.32 3.38

Social Science 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.35 2.75

35

2017-18

Licensure Area Completers Male Female Caucasian Black Hispanic Mixed UG

GPA

Transitional

Licensure GPA

Biology 6-12 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 3.14 3.89

Chemistry 6-12 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 2.91 3.44

English 6-12 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 3.33 3.59

Business 6-12 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2.88 3.71

History 6-12 5* 4 1 5 0 0 0 3.29 3.72

Math 6-12 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 2.87 3.66

Spanish 6-12 5* 2 3 1 1 2 1 3.24 3.66

Agriculture 6-12 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 2.91 3.92

FCS 6-12 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3.53 3.50

PE K-12 7 5 2 5 1 1* 1* 3.07 3.48

PreK-3 2* 0 2 0 2 0 0 3.16 3.67

K-6 3* 0 3 2 1 0 0 3.35 3.78

MG 4-8 8 4 4 5 3 0 0 3.20 3.82

Special Education K-12 4 1 3 3 1 0 0 3.10 3.46

English 2nd Language 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3.94 4.00

Music K-12 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 3.11 3.79

Marketing 9-12 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.26 3.67

*Duplicates reported. Completers may have had multiple licensure areas or different ethnicity/race.

36

2016-17

Licensure Area Completers Male Female Caucasian Black Hispanic UG GPA Transitional

Licensure GPA

Biology 6-12 5 1 4 5 3.19 3.80

Chemistry 6-12 2 2 2 3.58 3.54

Physics 6-12 1 1 1 2.92 4.00

English 6-12 4 2 2 4 3.28 3.63

Business 6-12 1 1 1 3.75 3.00

Marketing 6-12 1 1 1 3.26 3.67

History 6-12 1 1 1 3.82 4.00

Government 6-12 1 1 1 3.89 3.67

Math 6-12 4 3 1 4 2.98 3.52

Spanish 6-12 8 2 6 5 1 2 3.43 3.74

French 6-12 1 1 1 2.90 4.00

Agriculture 6-12 5 3 2 5 3.33 3.63

Art K-12 1 1 1 3.81 4.00

FCS 6-12 1 1 1 3.56 3.83

PE K-12 8 4 4 5 3 3.18 3.43

PreK-3 1 1 1 3.27 3.65

K-6 2 2 1 1 3.22 3.22

MG 4-8 3 3 3 2.94 3.75

Special Education K-12 3 1 2 2 1 3.01 3.57

37

Special Education PreK-3 1 1 1 3.28 3.75

Vocal/Gen Music K-12 1 1 1 3.90 4.00

38

PRAXIS TESTING

2017-19 Student Teaching Admission/Praxis Data The table below represents the number of candidates applying to student teaching, how many are accepted, denied, Praxis II testing information, withdrew from

student teaching, and ultimately from start to finish what is the completion percentage. All the data is broken into licensure area.

Dictionary

Column A Endorsement Area

Column B Number of candidates applied to student teaching

Column C Number of candidates accepted to student teaching

Column D Number of candidates denied to student teaching

Column E Percentage of candidates who accepted to student teaching from those applied

Column F Praxis II test code required by endorsement area

Column G Number of test takers by test

Column H Number of candidates who did not pass test identified in column F

Column I Percentage of candidates who passed test identified in column F

Column J Number of candidates denied to student teaching because of failing test identified in column F

Column K Candidates who decided to graduate non-licensure. This could be candidates who were accepted or denied entrance into student teaching

Column L Number of candidates who withdrew from student teaching

Column M Number of candidates who completed student teaching

Column N Percentage of candidates who completed student teaching from those who started student teaching

Column O Percentage of candidates who completed student teaching from those who applied to student teaching (complete funnel)

39

2018-19

Lice

nsu

re A

rea

Stu

de

nt

Teac

hin

g A

pp

lican

ts

Acc

ep

ted

Entr

ance

De

nie

d

% E

nte

red

Stu

den

t Te

ach

ing

Test

No

t P

asse

d

Test

Tak

ers

Nu

mb

er T

hat

Did

N

ot

Pas

s

Pas

sin

g Sc

ore

%

De

nie

d D

id n

ot

Take

Tes

t

Gra

du

ate

d N

on

-Li

cen

sure

Wit

hd

rew

Co

mp

lete

d S

tud

ent

Teac

hin

g

% C

om

ple

ted

St

ud

en

t Te

ach

ing

% W

ho

Mak

e It

fr

om

Ap

plic

atio

n t

o

Co

mp

leti

on

of

Stu

de

nt

Teac

hin

g

Music K-12 9 9 0 100.0% 5114 9 0 100.0% 0 0 0 8 88.9% 88.9%

Agriculture 7-12 3 3 0 100.0% 5701 3 0 100.0% 0 0 0 3 100.0% 100.0%

HHP K-12 9 4 5 44.4% 5095 8 4 50.0% 1 0 0 4 100.0% 44.4%

5551 9 1 88.9% 0

Art K-12 3 2 1 66.7% 5135 3 1 66.7% 0 0 1 1 50.0% 33.3%

SPED K-8, 6-12 5 5 0 100.0% 5543 5 0 100.0% 0 0 0 5 100.0% 100.0%

5203 5 0 100.0% 0

English 6-12 11 11 0 100.0% 5038 11 0 100.0% 0 0 0 11 100.0% 100.0%

History 6-12 7 5 2 71.4% 5941 7 2 71.4% 0 0 0 5 100.0% 71.4%

Business 6-12 2 2 0 100.0% 5101 2 0 100.0% 0 0 0 2 100.0% 100.0%

Government 6-12 1 1 0 100.0% 5149 1 0 100.0% 0 0 0 1 100.0% 100.0%

French 6-12 1 1 0 100.0% 5174 1 0 100.0% 0 0 0 1 100.0% 100.0%

Dance K-12 1 1 0 100.0% 5624 1 0 100.0% 0 0 0 1 100.0% 100.0%

FCS 6-12 1 0 1 0.0% 5122 1 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

40

Spanish 6-12 3 1 2 33.3% 5195 3 2 33.3% 0 0 0 1 100.0% 100.0%

Math 6-12 2 2 0 100.0% 5161 2 0 100.0% 0 0 0 2 100.0% 100.0%

MG 6-8

13 9 4 69.2% 5169 6 1 83.3% 1 0 0 8 88.9% 61.5%

5440 2 2 0.0% 0 0 0

5047 2 1 50.0% 0 0 0

5089 3 0 100.0% 0 0 0

5203 13 1 92.3% 0 0 0

Elementary K-5

80 69 11 86.3% 5018 78 8 89.7% 2 2 2 65 94.2% 81.3%

5017 77 5 93.5% 3

5203 77 2 97.4% 3

Early Childhood PreK-3

14 13 1 92.9% 5018 14 1 92.9% 0 0 0 13 100.0% 92.9%

5024 13 0 100.0% 1

5203 14 0 100.0% 0

TOTAL 165 138 27 83.6% 370 32 91.4% 11 2 3 133 96.4% 80.6%

41

2017-18

Lice

nsu

re

Are

a

Stu

den

t Te

ach

ing

Ap

plic

ants

Acc

epte

d

Entr

ance

De

nie

d

Pra

xis

II T

est

Test

Tak

ers

Nu

mb

er T

hat

D

id N

ot

Pas

s

Pas

sin

g Sc

ore

%

De

nie

d D

id

no

t Ta

ke T

est

% E

nte

red

St

ud

ent

Teac

hin

g

Co

mp

lete

d

Stu

den

t

Teac

hin

g

% W

ho

Mak

e It

fro

m

Ad

mis

sio

n t

o

Co

mp

leti

on

o

f St

ud

ent

Teac

hin

g

Music K-12 20 10 10 5114 20 10 50.0% 0 50.0% 10 50.0%

Agriculture 7-12 7 7 0 5701 7 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 6 85.7%

HHP K-12 19 10 11 5095 17 7 58.8% 2 52.6% 10 52.6%

5551 19 1 94.7% 1

Art K-12 4 2 2 5135 4 2 50.0% 0 50.0% 2 50.0%

SPED K-8 7 7 0 5543 7 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 7 100.0%

5203 7 0 100.0% 0

English 6-12 7 7 0 5038 7 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 7 100.0%

History 6-12 11 10 1 5941 10 0 100.0% 1 90.9% 10 90.9%

Government 6-12 2 2 0 5931 2 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0%

Spanish 6-12 1 0 1 5195 1 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Business 7-12 1 1 0 5101 1 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 1 100.0%

Dance 6-12 2 2 0 5195 2 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 2 100.0%

Math 6-12 5 4 1 5161 5 1 80.0% 0 80.0% 4 80.0%

42

Biology 6-12 1 1 0 5235 1 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 1 100.0%

FCS 6-12 4 4 0 5235 4 0 100.0% 0 100.0% 4 100.0%

MG 4-8 18 15 3 5146 17 1 94.1% 1 83.3% 15 83.3%

5203 17 1 94.1% 1

Elementary K-5

63 46 16 5018 62 11 82.3% 1 73.0% 44 69.8%

5017 62 4 93.5% 1

5203 61 7 88.5% 2

Early Childhood PreK-3

7 6 1 5018 6 0 100.0% 1 85.7% 6 85.7%

5024 6 0 100.0% 1

5203 6 0 100.0% 1

43

2018-19 Praxis Pass Rates

Overall The overall category examines those candidates who APPLIED to student teaching, regardless of admittance or denial into student teaching. This does not

include job-embedded practitioners, as most of them have content that was not UTM trained. Candidates are required to pass all Praxis II tests in order to be

admitted into student teaching. Columns from left to right are the specific Praxis test, N score, average number of attempts to receive either a passing score or

highest score received, average number of candidates who passed by 2nd attempt, candidates passing score or highest score achieved average, passing score for

the listed test in the row, and the last columns are the subcategories of the test, composed of the average number of points scored of candidates and average of

points possible in the category. Since completers are required to pass all Praxis II tests, thus yielding better numbers, UTM decided this metric used gives us a

clearer picture as to how our candidates are doing on their Praxis tests. This includes the ones who are not able to student teach because of testing issues.

This is a new way of looking at Praxis scores from last year’s Data Guidebook. Once we get a year over year picture, it will provide even further valuable data.

Two benchmarks exist for the Praxis tests, both of which are established by the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE). The first benchmark is the passing

score for the state. The second benchmark, found on the TDOE Annual Report measures, is all completers from an Educator Preparation Program (EPP) average

a 90% or above pass rate by the 2nd attempt. UTM is looking for an average score higher than the required passing score and a higher percentage than 90% for

percentage who passed by 2nd attempt.

Praxis tests where UTM does not meet the required benchmark (n= score greater than 5) are 5018, 5095, 5114, 5551, 5622, 5623, 5722, 5732, and 5941. Praxis

tests UTM is above the benchmark (n= score greater than 5) are 5017, 5024, 5038, 5203, 5543, 5621, 5624, 5712. Other tests UTM is waiting to have a higher n=

score, which for some areas may take a couple cycles of data. 5621, 5622, 5623, and 5624 tests, starting Spring 2019, has been replaced with edTPA and the n=

score will be fading. The 5146 test has been replaced by the content specific middle grades tests.

To see test categories, click on the test code/name and scroll down to the ‘Test at a Glance’ section in the test companion provided by ETS.

Praxis II Test Code/Name N

=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. of

Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

UTM

Avg

. Sco

re

Re

qu

ire

d P

assi

ng

Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5017 Elem Ed: Curriculum Instruction & Assessment 79 1.2 89.9% 166.4 153 22.1 31.0 17.5 25.9 12.3 16.0 9.4 14.0 8.9 12.7

https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/5017.pdf




44


=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. of

Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

UTM

Avg

. Sco

re

Re

qu

ire

d P

assi

ng

Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5018 Elem Ed: Content Knowledge 93 1.7 78.5% 170.2 163 31.2 41.4 26.6 36.0 12.5 20.9 15.0 21.0

5024 Education of Young Children 15 1.1 100.0% 169.7 160 15.6 20.8 11.8 15.3 12.5 15.9 12.0 15.8 21.3 30.6 14.3 18.0

5038 English Language Arts: Content Knowledge 11 1.0 100.0% 178.4 167 31.8 41.0 21.4 28.0 31.3 41.0

5047 Middle School English Language Arts 2 1.0 50.0% 168.5 164 34.0 40.5 8.5 12.5 17.5 21.0 11.0 15.0 7.5 12.0

5089 Middle School Social Studies 3 1.3 66.7% 166.7 146 14.3 20.0 11.0 15.7 8.0 14.7 10.7 14.7 8.7 14.3 8.7 18.0

5095 Physical Education: Content and Design 8 3.4 12.5% 170.3 169 16.0 23.6 15.5 20.9 17.3 19.9 11.0 15.3 7.4 12.0

5101 Business Education: Content Knowledge 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 154 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5

5114 Music: Content and Instruction 9 1.9 77.8% 168.3 162 20.2 31.8 18.3 24.0 21.7 28.2 13.1 18.0

5122 Family and Consumer Sciences 1 1.0 0.00 150.0 153 8.0 13.0 13.0 18.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 16.0 13.0 17.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

5135 Art: Content and Analysis 3 1.0 66.7% 164.7 161 38.0 53.7 18.7 30.0 11.7 18.0

5146 Middle School: Content Knowledge 2 1.5 100.0% 153.5 150 16.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 14.0 25.0 16.5 25.0

5161 Mathematics: Content Knowledge 2 4.5 0.0% 163.5 160 24.5 34.0 11.0 16.0

5169 Middle School Mathematics 4 2.8 50.0% 170.3 165 20.5 28.0 11.3 17.0































45


=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. of

Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

UTM

Avg

. Sco

re

Re

qu

ire

d P

assi

ng

Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5174 French: World Language 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 160 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0

5195 Spanish: World Language 3 3.0 0.0% 154.7 163 17.0 25.0 15.3 24.7 8.7 12.0 11.0 18.0 8.3 18.0

5203 Teaching Reading: Elementary Education 111 1.4 92.8% 171.3 162 14.3 19.4 26.3 39.3 13.9 19.6 12.4 18.0

5354 Special Ed: Core Knowledge and Applications 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 151 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0

5440 Middle School Science 1 2.0 0.00 132.0 150 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0

5543 Special Ed: Core Know Mild to Moderate App 8 1.0 100.0% 171.9 158 12.3 15.0 13.0 17.0 13.6 17.5 10.9 14.5 11.5 15.0 12.0 18.0

5545 Special Ed: Core Know Severe to Profound App 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 158 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0

5551 Health Education 9 2.0 77.8% 152.9 144 11.4 18.0 19.9 32.5 24.3 33.0 6.9 13.0 7.5 13.0

5621 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Early Child 16 1.1 100.0% 172.0 157 14.6 20.9 15.5 20.3 9.8 14.1 10.8 13.4 11.1 16.0

5622 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades K-6 72 1.1 88.9 172.1 160 14.7 21.5 14.7 20.6 9.8 13.6 10.7 13.9 11.5 16.0

5623 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades 5-9 14 1.1 85.7% 168.6 160 15.8 21.4 14.0 20.6 9.4 14.4 8.9 12.6 10.6 16.0






























46


=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. of

Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

UTM

Avg

. Sco

re

Re

qu

ire

d P

assi

ng

Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5624 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades 7-12 38 1.1 94.7% 172.2 157 14.8 21.2 14.5 20.3 10.3 13.9 9.5 13.3 10.6 16.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

5691 Special Ed: Preschool/Early Childhood 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 159 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

5701 Agriculture 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 147 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3

5712 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Reading 53 1.1 94.3% 171.3 156 13.6 18.8 9.6 14.0 10.6 17.2

5722 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Writing 54 1.6 70.4% 164.1 162 20.4 34.0 15.2 24.0

5732 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Math 54 1.6 48.1% 148.7 150 8.9 15.1 8.6 15.0 4.2 9.9 6.4 10.0

5921 Geography 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 149 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0

5931 Government/Political Science 3 1.0 100.0% 168.7 149 20.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 12.5 16.0 15.0 19.0 10.5 13.0

5941 World and US History: Content Knowledge 7 1.7 71.4% 165.4 157 20.4 27.0 18.0 28.3 19.0 28.6 20.6 27.6 21.4 27.4
























47

Completers vs. Non-Completers Disaggregating the candidates by completer status allows UTM to compare certain Praxis tests to the state benchmark. The benchmark is 90% of completers

pass the required Praxis test by the 2nd attempt. The row entitled “completer” is what the TDOE will look at on their annual reports. A completer is a candidate

who completed all licensure requirements.

Tests to note that fall under the state benchmark are the 5018, 5089, 5095, 5114, 5169, 5551, 5722, 5732, and 5941, but it is important to look at the n= score

for each of those. One completer could make a significant impact with the lower the n= score. This one will be worth monitoring year over year to see coming

trends on the TDOE Annual Report.

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5017 Elem Ed: Curriculum Instruction & Assessment 78 1.2 89.7% 166.5 22.1 31.0 17.6 25.9 12.3 16.0 9.4 14.0 9.0 12.7

Completed 65 1.1 98.5% 168.6 22.6 31.0 18.2 25.9 12.5 16.0 9.6 14.0 9.0 12.6

Not Completed 13 1.4 46.2% 155.8 19.5 31.0 14.9 25.8 11.5 16.0 8.3 14.0 8.6 12.8

5018 Elem Ed: Content Knowledge 91 1.7 80.2% 170.4 31.2 41.4 26.7 36.0 12.6 20.9 15.0 21.0

Completed 78 1.6 87.2% 172.1 31.6 41.4 27.3 36.0 12.8 20.9 15.2 21.0

Not Completed 13 2.2 38.5% 160.3 29.1 41.2 23.6 36.0 11.2 20.8 13.9 21.0

5024 Education of Young Children 14 1.1 100.0% 170.4 15.9 20.8 11.7 15.2 12.4 15.9 12.1 15.8 21.3 30.6 14.5 18.0

Completed 13 1.0 100.0% 170.9 15.8 20.8 11.6 15.2 12.4 15.8 12.2 15.8 21.5 30.7 14.6 18.0

Not Completed 1 2.0 100.0% 163.0 16.0 21.0 13.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 11.0 15.0 18.0 29.0 13.0 18.0

5038 English Language Arts: Content Knowledge 11 1.0 100.0% 178.4 31.8 41.0 21.4 28.0 31.3 41.0

Completed 11 1.0 100.0% 178.4 31.8 41.0 21.4 28.0 31.3 41.0

48

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5047 Middle School English Language Arts 2 1.0 50.0% 168.5 34.0 40.5 8.5 12.5 17.5 21.0 11.0 15.0 7.5 12.0

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 186.0 37.0 40.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 21.0 14.0 15.0 9.0 12.0

Not Completed 1 1.0 0.0% 151.0 31.0 41.0 7.0 12.0 15.0 21.0 8.0 15.0 6.0 12.0

5089 Middle School Social Studies 3 1.3 66.7% 166.7 14.3 20.0 11.0 15.7 8.0 14.7 10.7 14.7 8.7 14.3 8.7 18.0

Completed 3 1.3 66.7% 166.7 14.3 20.0 11.0 15.7 8.0 14.7 10.7 14.7 8.7 14.3 8.7 18.0

5095 Physical Education: Content and Design 8 3.4 12.5% 170.3 16.0 23.6 15.5 20.9 17.3 19.9 11.0 15.3 7.4 12.0

Completed 4 4.8 25.0% 172.8 17.0 23.5 15.8 21.0 19.0 20.0 11.8 15.0 6.8 12.0

Not Completed 4 2.0 0.0% 167.8 15.0 23.8 15.3 20.8 15.5 19.8 10.3 15.5 8.0 12.0

5101 Business Education: Content Knowledge 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5

Completed 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5

5114 Music: Content and Instruction 9 1.9 77.8% 168.3 20.2 31.8 18.3 24.0 21.7 28.2 13.1 18.0

Completed 8 1.8 87.5% 169.1 20.9 31.8 18.6 24.0 22.1 28.3 12.8 18.0

Not Completed 1 3.0 0.0% 162.0 15.0 32.0 16.0 24.0 18.0 28.0 16.0 18.0

5122 Family and Consumer Sciences 1 1.0 0.0% 150.0 8.0 13.0 13.0 18.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 16.0 13.0 17.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

Not Completed 1 1.0 0.0% 150.0 8.0 13.0 13.0 18.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 16.0 13.0 17.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

5135 Art: Content and Analysis 3 1.0 66.7% 164.7 38.0 53.7 18.7 30.0 11.7 18.0

49

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 161.0 33.0 53.0 17.0 30.0 14.0 18.0

Not Completed 2 1.0 50.0% 166.5 40.5 54.0 19.5 30.0 10.5 18.0

5146 Middle School: Content Knowledge 2 1.5 100.0% 153.5 16.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 14.0 25.0 16.5 25.0

Completed 2 1.5 100.0% 153.5 16.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 14.0 25.0 16.5 25.0

5161 Mathematics: Content Knowledge 2 4.5 0.0% 163.5 24.5 34.0 11.0 16.0

Completed 2 4.5 0.0% 163.5 24.5 34.0 11.0 16.0

5169 Middle School Mathematics 4 2.8 50.0% 170.3 20.5 28.0 11.3 17.0

Completed 4 2.8 50.0% 170.3 20.5 28.0 11.3 17.0

5174 French: World Language 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0

Completed 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0

5195 Spanish: World Language 3 3.0 0.0% 154.7 17.0 25.0 15.3 24.7 8.7 12.0 11.0 18.0 8.3 18.0

Completed 1 3.0 0.0% 164.0 18.0 25.0 19.0 24.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 7.0 18.0

Not Completed 2 3.0 0.0% 150.0 16.5 25.0 13.5 25.0 8.0 12.0 10.0 18.0 9.0 18.0

5203 Teaching Reading: Elementary Education 107 1.4 92.5% 171.3 14.3 19.4 26.3 39.3 13.9 19.6 12.4 18.0

Completed 92 1.3 94.6% 172.2 14.5 19.4 26.6 39.3 14.2 19.6 12.6 18.0

Not Completed 15 1.4 80.0% 165.5 13.1 19.5 24.4 39.2 12.4 19.5 11.6 18.0

5354 Special Ed: Core Knowledge and Applications 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0

50

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0

5440 Middle School Science 1 2.0 0.0% 132.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0

Not Completed 1 2.0 0.0% 132.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0

5543 Special Ed: Core Know Mild to Moderate App 6 1.0 100.0% 174.5 12.2 15.0 13.5 17.3 13.7 17.3 11.2 14.3 11.8 15.3 12.7 18.0

Completed 6 1.0 100.0% 174.5 12.2 15.0 13.5 17.3 13.7 17.3 11.2 14.3 11.8 15.3 12.7 18.0

5545 Special Ed: Core Know Severe to Profound App 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0

5551 Health Education 9 2.0 77.8% 152.9 11.4 18.0 19.9 32.5 24.3 33.0 6.9 13.0 7.5 13.0

Completed 4 2.5 75.0% 150.3 11.0 18.0 20.0 32.7 24.3 33.0 6.3 13.0 7.0 13.0

Not Completed 5 1.6 80.0% 155.0 11.6 18.0 19.8 32.4 24.2 33.0 7.2 13.0 7.8 13.0

5621 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Early Child 15 1.0 100.0% 172.1 14.7 20.9 15.6 20.3 9.9 14.1 10.7 13.4 11.1 16.0

Completed 13 1.0 100.0% 173.2 14.5 20.8 15.7 20.2 9.9 14.2 10.6 13.4 11.4 16.0

Not Completed 2 1.0 100.0% 166.0 15.5 21.0 15.0 20.5 10.0 14.0 11.0 13.5 9.5 16.0

5622 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades K-6 69 1.1 88.4% 172.0 14.6 21.4 14.7 20.7 9.8 13.6 10.7 13.9 11.5 16.0

Completed 61 1.1 93.4% 173.9 14.8 21.4 15.0 20.7 10.1 13.7 10.8 13.9 11.9 16.0

Not Completed 8 1.3 50.0% 158.3 13.0 21.3 11.6 20.6 7.3 13.6 10.0 13.9 8.4 16.0

51

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5623 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades 5-9 14 1.1 85.7% 168.6 15.8 21.4 14.0 20.6 9.4 14.4 8.9 12.6 10.6 16.0

Completed 12 1.2 91.7% 169.3 15.8 21.4 14.0 20.6 9.9 14.4 8.8 12.3 10.9 16.0

Not Completed 2 1.0 50.0% 164.5 16.0 21.0 14.0 21.0 6.5 14.0 9.5 14.0 9.0 16.0

5624 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades 7-12 38 1.1 94.7% 172.2 14.8 21.2 14.5 20.3 10.3 13.9 9.5 13.3 10.6 16.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

Completed 31 1.0 100.0% 174.0 15.1 21.1 14.9 20.6 10.5 13.9 9.7 13.3 11.1 16.0

Not Completed 7 1.4 71.4% 164.0 13.4 21.6 12.7 19.1 9.4 13.6 8.7 13.0 8.6 16.1 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0

5691 Special Ed: Preschool/Early Childhood 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

5701 Agriculture 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3

Completed 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3

5712 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Reading 50 1.1 94.0% 171.9 13.6 18.8 9.6 14.0 10.6 17.2

Completed 40 1.1 92.5% 173.2 13.9 19.1 9.5 13.8 11.4 17.1

Not Completed 10 1.3 100.0% 166.6 12.7 18.0 10.0 14.7 8.0 17.3

5722 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Writing 51 1.6 70.6% 164.2 20.4 34.0 15.2 24.0

Completed 40 1.5 77.5% 165.7 20.9 34.0 15.8 24.0

Not Completed 11 1.9 45.5% 159.1 19.5 34.0 14.0 24.0

52

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d A

tte

mp

t

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5732 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Math 51 1.5 47.1% 148.7 8.9 15.1 8.6 15.0 4.2 9.9 6.4 10.0

Completed 40 1.5 50.0% 148.0 8.9 15.1 8.5 15.0 4.2 9.9 6.5 10.0

Not Completed 11 1.5 36.4% 151.3 9.0 15.2 8.6 15.0 4.2 9.8 6.2 10.0

5921 Geography 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0

Completed 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0

5931 Government/Political Science 3 1.0 100.0% 168.7 20.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 12.5 16.0 15.0 19.0 10.5 13.0

Completed 3 1.0 100.0% 168.7 20.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 12.5 16.0 15.0 19.0 10.5 13.0

5941 World and US History: Content Knowledge 7 1.7 71.4% 165.4 20.4 27.0 18.0 28.3 19.0 28.6 20.6 27.6 21.4 27.4

Completed 6 1.7 83.3% 168.7 21.5 27.0 18.5 28.2 19.7 28.5 21.3 27.7 21.8 27.5

Not Completed 1 2.0 0.0% 146.0 14.0 27.0 15.0 29.0 15.0 29.0 16.0 27.0 19.0 27.0

53

Campus and Program Disaggregation by campus/program pertains mostly to Praxis CORE tests (5712, 5722, 5732), Elementary Education K-5 area tests (5018, 5017, 5203, 5622), and

an occasional Middle Grades 6-8 content area test (5146, 5089, 5169, 5047, 5440). The table includes both those who did not complete (applied to student

teaching), and those who did complete licensure.

Master’s Initial Licensure (MSIL), even though smaller n= scores, has strong pass rates. All but one test, 5732 at 80%, is at 100% pass rate by the 2nd attempt.

Parsons campus boasts the 2nd highest n= score among campus/program, with the Elementary Education K-5 Praxis II being the main reason. A noticeable trend

is the number of candidates required to take the Praxis CORE tests is high (roughly 50% of test takers). Candidates are required to take the Praxis CORE because

they do not have the required 22 ACT score. Out of 7 tests where the n=score is greater than 5, 5 of them are below the 90% pass rate by 2nd attempt benchmark

required by the TDOE. The only two that are at or above the 90% benchmark are the 5017 and 5622 tests.

Post-baccalaureate program has a low n= score and will be monitored as the n= score grows when more years are added.

Ripley campus only has a handful of Praxis tests above 5 n= score. The 5017 and 5018 tests are both below the 90% benchmark. 5203 is the only test at the

required 90% benchmark. 5622 test (n=5) is the only test above the 90% benchmark.

Selmer campus, similar to Ripley, only has a handful of Praxis tests above 5 n= score. The 5018 and 5622 tests are below the 90% benchmark, with the 5622 test

being only 1.1% away. The 5017 and the 5203 are both above the 90% benchmark.

UG program, housed at the main Martin location and the largest of the campuses/programs, are comprised of traditional 4-year completers. Tests above the

required 90% benchmark with an n= score greater than 5 are the 5017, 5038, 5203, 5543, 5621, 5624, and 5712. Tests below the benchmark and n= are 5018,

5095, 5114, 5551, 5622, 5623, 5722, and 5732. The test with the most negative trend to watch is the 5095 with 12.5% pass rate by 2nd attempt. Many tests are

worth mentioning, but no conclusions can be drawn until multiple years of scores can be compiled to have a higher n= score.

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

MSIL



54

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)










Parsons






55

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)








PB








56

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)



Ripley










Selmer



57

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)









UG





5047 Middle School English Language Arts 2 1.0 50.0% 168.5 34.0 40.5 8.5 12.5 17.5 21.0 11.0 15.0 7.5 12.0


58

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)


5101 Business Education: Content Knowledge 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5



5135 Art: Content and Analysis 3 1.0 66.7% 164.7 38.0 53.7 18.7 30.0 11.7 18.0



5174 French: World Language 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0

5195 Spanish: World Language 3 3.0 0.0% 154.7 17.0 25.0 15.3 24.7 8.7 12.0 11.0 18.0 8.3 18.0


5354 Special Ed: Core Knowledge and Applications 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0

5440 Middle School Science 1 2.0 0.0% 132.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0


5545 Special Ed: Core Know Severe to Profound App 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0

5551 Health Education 9 2.0 77.8% 152.9 11.4 18.0 19.9 32.5 24.3 33.0 6.9 13.0 7.5 13.0


59

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)




5691 Special Ed: Preschool/Early Childhood 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

5701 Agriculture 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3




5921 Geography 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0

5931 Government/Political Science 3 1.0 100.0% 168.7 20.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 12.5 16.0 15.0 19.0 10.5 13.0


60

By Admission Type There are three types of admission into the Educator Preparation Program (EPP). Regular admission is candidates with and ACT 22 or above, with a 2.75 or better

overall GPA. CORE admission types are those who did not have the required ACT score but passed all three CORE tests. Appeal candidates are those who were

below a 22 ACT and did not pass all 3 parts of the Praxis CORE tests.

The Praxis II tests that relate primarily to K-5 program are the ones that showed the most disparity in appeal type. The 5017 had 100% pass rate by 2nd attempt

among CORE and regular admits but appeals only had a 68% pass rate by the 2nd attempt. Average score dropped slightly from regular to CORE admits from

170.8 (n=45) to 166.8 (n=9), but then dropped drastically for those on appeal to 158.3 (n=25). Passing score is 153. The 5018 had a 94.7% (n=57) pass rate by 2nd

attempt from regular admits, 88.9% (n=9) pass rate by CORE, and then drops to 40.7% (n=27) by appeals. Average test score starts at 174 for regular admits,

goes down to 169.8 for CORE, to finally 162.2 for appeals. Passing score is 163. The 5203 by admit type went regular admits with a 173.2 (n=32) average score

and 100% pass rate by 2nd attempt, CORE with a 173.5 (n=11) average score and 90.9% pass rate, then dropped to a 166.4 (n=32) average score and 78.1% pass

rate by appeal admits.

Other Praxis tests to note is the 5095, 5114, 5543, 5551, 5722, 5732, and 5941. The 5095 has a disparity of appeals (n=5) to CORE/regular admits (n=3). The 5551

pairs with the 5095 since health and P.E. are grouped in a dual major. 5551 has the same trend with more appeals (n=5) than CORE/regular admits (n=4). 5114

has strong admission status with 9 admitted with regular status. 5543 tests have a 100% pass rate by 2nd attempt for all admit types. 5941 tests have an upside-

down data set, with appeal and CORE having 100% pass rate by 2nd attempt, and regular admits being at 50%. N= score is lower for the 5941, so it should be

monitored to see if that trend continues. Out of the Praxis CORE 5712, 5722, and 5732 tests, reading is the strongest of the three with a 91.7% pass rate by 2nd

attempt among appeals (n=37), and 100% by those who pass all three CORE (n=7). Writing and Math CORE are a different story. Writing has a 56.8% pass rate by

2nd attempt (n=37) and math with a 27% (n=17) pass rate among appeals. These two tests are the main reason appeals are not passing the Praxis CORE and being

admitted into the EPP.

Many Praxis tests still do not have a high n=score to start drawing conclusions and need to be monitored in the cycles ahead. The Principles of Learning and

Teaching (PLT) tests are not worth mentioning, as it has been replaced by edTPA for licensure.

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)


61

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Appeal 25 1.4 68.0% 158.3 20.1 31.0 15.4 25.8 11.7 16.0 8.5 14.0 8.9 12.8

CORE 9 1.0 100.0% 166.8 22.4 31.0 16.8 25.9 12.0 16.0 10.4 14.0 8.9 12.8

Regular 45 1.1 100.0% 170.8 23.1 31.0 18.8 25.9 12.7 16.0 9.7 14.0 9.0 12.6


Appeal 27 2.9 40.7% 162.2 29.7 41.2 23.5 36.0 11.0 20.9 14.0 21.0

CORE 9 1.3 88.9% 169.8 30.1 41.1 27.6 36.0 12.5 20.9 14.5 21.0

Regular 57 1.2 94.7% 174.0 32.1 41.5 28.0 36.0 13.1 20.9 15.6 21.0 5024 Education of Young Children 15 1.1 100.0% 169.7 15.6 20.8 11.8 15.3 12.5 15.9 12.0 15.8 21.3 30.6 14.3 18.0

Appeal 3 1.3 100.0% 167.7 14.3 20.7 12.0 15.7 13.0 16.0 10.0 15.7 21.0 30.3 15.7 18.0

Regular 12 1.1 100.0% 170.2 15.9 20.8 11.8 15.2 12.3 15.8 12.5 15.8 21.4 30.7 13.9 18.0 5038 English Language Arts: Content Knowledge 11 1.0 100.0% 178.4 31.8 41.0 21.4 28.0 31.3 41.0

Regular 11 1.0 100.0% 178.4 31.8 41.0 21.4 28.0 31.3 41.0 5047 Middle School English Language Arts 2 1.0 50.0% 168.5 34.0 40.5 8.5 12.5 17.5 21.0 11.0 15.0 7.5 12.0

Appeal 1 1.0 0.0% 151.0 31.0 41.0 7.0 12.0 15.0 21.0 8.0 15.0 6.0 12.0

Regular 1 1.0 100.0% 186.0 37.0 40.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 21.0 14.0 15.0 9.0 12.0 5089 Middle School Social Studies 3 1.3 66.7% 166.7 14.3 20.0 11.0 15.7 8.0 14.7 10.7 14.7 8.7 14.3 8.7 18.0

Appeal 1 1.0 100.0% 179.0 17.0 20.0 15.0 16.0 10.0 15.0 12.0 15.0 7.0 14.0 9.0 18.0

Regular 2 1.5 50.0% 160.5 13.0 20.0 9.0 15.5 7.0 14.5 10.0 14.5 9.5 14.5 8.5 18.0

62

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)


Appeal 5 3.4 20.0% 173.6 17.4 23.6 15.8 20.8 17.2 19.8 11.6 15.4 7.8 12.0

CORE 2 4.5 0.0% 167.5 13.5 23.5 15.5 21.0 18.5 20.0 10.0 15.0 7.5 12.0

Regular 1 1.0 0.0% 159.0 14.0 24.0 14.0 21.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 12.0 5101 Business Education: Content Knowledge 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5

Regular 2 1.0 100.0% 176.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 9.5 12.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 8.0 11.5


Regular 9 1.9 77.8% 168.3 20.2 31.8 18.3 24.0 21.7 28.2 13.1 18.0


Regular 1 1.0 0.0% 150.0 8.0 13.0 13.0 18.0 9.0 12.0 10.0 16.0 13.0 17.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 5135 Art: Content and Analysis 3 1.0 66.7% 164.7 38.0 53.7 18.7 30.0 11.7 18.0

CORE 2 1.0 50.0% 160.0 36.5 54.0 16.0 30.0 12.0 18.0

Regular 1 1.0 100.0% 174.0 41.0 53.0 24.0 30.0 11.0 18.0


Regular 2 1.5 100.0% 153.5 16.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 14.0 25.0 16.5 25.0


Regular 2 4.5 0.0% 163.5 24.5 34.0 11.0 16.0

63

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)


Appeal 1 5.0 0.0% 171.0 20.0 28.0 12.0 17.0

Regular 3 2.0 66.7% 170.0 20.7 28.0 11.0 17.0 5174 French: World Language 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0

Regular 1 2.0 100.0% 164.0 17.0 25.0 22.0 25.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 18.0 8.0 18.0 5195 Spanish: World Language 3 3.0 0.0% 154.7 17.0 25.0 15.3 24.7 8.7 12.0 11.0 18.0 8.3 18.0

Regular 3 3.0 0.0% 154.7 17.0 25.0 15.3 24.7 8.7 12.0 11.0 18.0 8.3 18.0 5203 Teaching Reading: Elementary Education 111 1.4 92.8% 171.3 14.3 19.4 26.3 39.3 13.9 19.6 12.4 18.0

Appeal 32 1.8 78.1% 166.4 13.5 19.4 24.1 39.3 12.7 19.6 11.8 18.0

CORE 11 1.3 90.9% 173.5 13.9 19.3 27.7 39.3 13.2 19.8 13.9 18.0

Regular 68 1.1 100.0% 173.2 14.7 19.4 27.0 39.3 14.6 19.5 12.5 18.0 5354 Special Ed: Core Knowledge and Applications 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0

Regular 1 1.0 100.0% 184.0 17.0 18.0 21.0 24.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 20.0 19.0 22.0 5440 Middle School Science 1 2.0 0.0% 132.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0

Appeal 1 2.0 0.0% 132.0 9.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 24.0 8.0 18.0 8.0 12.0 5543 Special Ed: Core Know Mild to Moderate App 8 1.0 100.0% 171.9 12.3 15.0 13.0 17.0 13.6 17.5 10.9 14.5 11.5 15.0 12.0 18.0

Appeal 1 1.0 100.0% 166.0 15.0 15.0 12.0 16.0 13.0 18.0 9.0 15.0 9.0 14.0 11.0 18.0

CORE 2 1.0 100.0% 177.5 13.5 15.0 12.0 16.0 14.5 18.0 12.5 15.0 11.5 14.0 13.0 18.0

64

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Regular 5 1.0 100.0% 170.8 11.2 15.0 13.6 17.6 13.4 17.2 10.6 14.2 12.0 15.6 11.8 18.0 5545 Special Ed: Core Know Severe to Profound App 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0

CORE 1 1.0 100.0% 185.0 11.0 13.0 17.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 12.0 15.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 18.0 5551 Health Education 9 2.0 77.8% 152.9 11.4 18.0 19.9 32.5 24.3 33.0 6.9 13.0 7.5 13.0

Appeal 5 2.2 80.0% 154.8 11.6 18.0 20.8 32.6 24.6 33.0 7.2 13.0 6.8 13.0

CORE 2 2.5 50.0% 144.0 12.0 18.0 15.0 33.0 21.0 33.0 7.0 13.0 8.0 13.0

Regular 2 1.0 100.0% 157.0 10.5 18.0 20.0 32.0 25.0 33.0 6.0 13.0 9.0 13.0 5621 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Early Child 16 1.1 100.0% 172.0 14.6 20.9 15.5 20.3 9.8 14.1 10.8 13.4 11.1 16.0

Appeal 4 1.0 100.0% 164.8 14.3 21.0 13.5 20.3 10.3 14.0 10.8 13.5 9.8 16.0

CORE 1 1.0 100.0% 168.0 15.0 21.0 18.0 21.0 10.0 14.0 8.0 14.0 10.0 16.0

Regular 11 1.1 100.0% 175.3 14.6 20.8 16.0 20.2 9.6 14.2 11.1 13.4 11.7 16.0 5622 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades K-6 72 1.1 88.9% 172.1 14.7 21.5 14.7 20.6 9.8 13.6 10.7 13.9 11.5 16.0

Appeal 20 1.3 70.0% 164.3 13.7 21.6 13.0 20.6 8.8 13.5 9.5 13.9 10.0 16.0

CORE 11 1.0 90.9% 173.6 14.9 21.5 14.9 20.7 10.3 13.5 11.0 13.6 11.6 16.0

Regular 41 1.1 97.6% 175.5 15.0 21.3 15.5 20.6 10.2 13.7 11.2 14.0 12.1 16.0 5623 Principles of Learn & Teaching: Grades 5-9 14 1.1 85.7% 168.6 15.8 21.4 14.0 20.6 9.4 14.4 8.9 12.6 10.6 16.0

Appeal 5 1.2 80.0% 166.4 15.2 21.4 13.2 20.6 9.2 14.2 8.2 13.0 10.8 16.0

Regular 9 1.1 88.9% 169.8 16.1 21.3 14.4 20.7 9.6 14.4 9.2 12.3 10.6 16.0

65

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)


Appeal 5 1.4 80.0% 160.8 13.2 21.4 12.8 20.4 8.6 14.0 8.4 13.4 7.4 16.0

CORE 3 1.7 66.7% 167.7 13.5 20.5 15.0 21.0 11.5 14.0 8.0 13.5 9.5 16.0

Regular 30 1.0 100.0% 174.5 15.1 21.2 14.8 20.3 10.5 13.8 9.8 13.2 11.2 16.0 10.0 16.0 14.0 16.0 5691 Special Ed: Preschool/Early Childhood 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

CORE 1 1.0 100.0% 177.0 16.0 19.0 20.0 27.0 36.0 41.0 17.0 22.0

5701 Agriculture 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3

Regular 3 1.0 100.0% 166.0 6.3 13.0 14.0 18.0 8.0 12.3 11.7 15.7 13.3 17.0 10.7 15.7 12.0 16.3 5712 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Reading 53 1.1 94.3% 171.3 13.6 18.8 9.6 14.0 10.6 17.2

Appeal 36 1.1 91.7% 170.1 12.6 18.6 9.5 13.9 10.3 17.5

CORE 17 1.1 100.0% 173.8 15.2 19.2 9.8 14.2 11.2 16.6 5722 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Writing 54 1.6 70.4% 164.1 20.4 34.0 15.2 24.0

Appeal 37 1.7 56.8% 163.1 19.8 34.0 15.3 24.0

CORE 17 1.4 100.0% 166.4 21.8 34.0 14.8 24.0 5732 Core Academic Skills for Educators: Math 54 1.6 48.1% 148.7 8.9 15.1 8.6 15.0 4.2 9.9 6.4 10.0

Appeal 37 1.6 27.0% 143.8 8.7 15.1 8.4 15.0 3.5 9.9 6.0 10.0

CORE 17 1.5 94.1% 159.5 9.5 15.2 8.8 15.0 5.5 9.8 7.2 10.0

66

Praxis II Test N=

Avg

. # o

f A

tte

mp

ts

Avg

. Pas

sed

by

2n

d

Att

em

pt

Avg

. Sco

re

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry1

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry2

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry3

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry4

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry5

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry6

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry7

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ear

ne

d)

Ave

rage

of

Cat

ego

ry8

(Po

ints

Ava

ilab

le)

5921 Geography 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0

Regular 1 1.0 100.0% 172.0 13.0 18.0 16.0 23.0 19.0 24.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 21.0 5931 Government/Political Science 3 1.0 100.0% 168.7 20.0 22.0 22.0 29.0 12.5 16.0 15.0 19.0 10.5 13.0

Appeal 2 1.0 100.0% 170.5 19.0 22.0 24.0 29.0 13.0 16.0 17.0 19.0 12.0 13.0

Regular 1 1.0 100.0% 165.0 21.0 22.0 20.0 29.0 12.0 16.0 13.0 19.0 9.0 13.0 5941 World and US History: Content Knowledge 7 1.7 71.4% 165.4 20.4 27.0 18.0 28.3 19.0 28.6 20.6 27.6 21.4 27.4

Appeal 2 1.0 100.0% 168.0 18.5 27.0 18.0 29.0 19.5 29.0 24.0 27.0 22.5 27.0

CORE 1 1.0 100.0% 173.0 23.0 27.0 18.0 29.0 20.0 29.0 24.0 27.0 23.0 27.0

Regular 4 2.3 50.0% 162.3 20.8 27.0 18.0 27.8 18.5 28.3 18.0 28.0 20.5 27.8

67

edTPA This was the first year UTM used edTPA during the student teaching experience. Candidates, if they did not pass the PLT before 8/31/18, are required to pass

edTPA for licensure. EdTPA replaced the PLT Praxis exam. EdTPA scores below are calculated on 1st attempt averages and broken down by academic majors and

rubric. Pass rate was 80%, but 15 out of the 20 who scored incomplete or failed had already passed the PLT, which could have resulted in those candidates not

taking edTPA seriously. The pass rate will be worth monitoring in the years to come to see when the candidates are truly held accountable for edTPA what the

pass rates end up being.

Majors N=

Ru

bri

c 1

Ru

bri

c 2

Ru

bri

c 3

Ru

bri

c 4

Ru

bri

c 5

Ru

bri

c 6

Ru

bri

c 7

Ru

bri

c 8

Ru

bri

c 9

Ru

bri

c 1

0

Ru

bri

c 1

1

Ru

bri

c 1

2

Ru

bri

c 1

3

Ru

bri

c 1

4

Ru

bri

c 1

5

Ru

bri

c 1

6

Ru

bri

c 1

7

Ru

bri

c 1

8

Ove

rall

Sco

re

Agricultural Education 2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 45.50

Art 1 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 49.00

Business Education 2 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 41.00

Dance - Performing Arts 1 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 29.00

Early Childhood Education- Early Childhood Development

5 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.6 2.8 3.2 43.20

Elementary Education: Literacy with Mathematics Task 4

28 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.6 50.28

Elementary Education: Mathematics with Literacy Task 4

3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 53.33

General Math - Middle Childhood 1 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 37.00

General Music - Performing Arts 3 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 48.67

Geometry - Middle Childhood 1 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 53.00

History- Middle Childhood 2 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 48.00

History-Secondary 4 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 39.25

Instrumental Music - Performing Arts 5 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.8 3.6 2.2 2.2 2.4 39.40

Learning disabilities 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 30.00

Mild/moderate 2 2.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 4.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 43.50

Physical Education - General 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 43.00

Reading - Middle Childhood 1 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 62.00

Secondary English & Language Arts 5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 46.80

Spanish 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.0 1.7 2.3 31.67

Vocal Music - Performing Arts 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 41.00

World History-Secondary 2 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 47.00

69

2017-19 TVAAS

Overall The 2019 TVAAS release is comprised of the 2014-17 University of Tennessee Martin Completers from the undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, graduate, and

job-embedded levels. Each table contains 3 cycles of data, along with a 3-cycle average. The year listed in the column is the year the TVAAS data was collected

(ex. 2018 is the 2017-18 academic year). TVAAS scores only account for 31% of completers. TVAAS is scored from level 1 to level 5, with level 5 being the highest.

2016 was the peak year over the 3-year period for TVAAS (2.79 average), decreasing by .4 (2.39), then increasing by .18 (2.57). TVAAS continues to be an area of

needed improvement for UTM, as the scores are what most affect us on Tennessee Educator Preparation Report Card. To respond to this much needed

improvement, UTM has created an induction position to assist new teachers from UTM stepping into the classroom. This position started in Spring 2019.

OVERALL TVAAS

Year n= TVAAS 3 Year n= 3 Year Avg

2018 175 2.57

170 2.59 2017 163 2.39

2016 172 2.79

70

ACT/GPA Analysis Analysis of overall TVAAS reveals both ACT and GPA have effect on TVAAS score. UTM requires a benchmark of 22 or above ACT to be admitted to the Educator

Preparation Program (EPP). Completers who core at or above a 22 ACT average .26 higher TVAAS score once in the classroom than those below a 22 ACT.

Completer TVAAS average over the three-year period went up if GPA average was above a 3.50. Those above a 3.50 GPA scored .32 higher TVAAS than those

below a 3.00 and .36 higher than those between a 3.00 and 3.49 GPA. Something worth noting is that in 2018, those below a 3.00 GPA average scored higher

than the other categories. This is worth monitoring over the next few cycles.

OVERALL ACT

ACT Year n= TVAAS 3 Year n= 3 Year Avg

<22

2018 39 2.26

43 2.41 2017 34 2.50

2016 56 2.46

>21

2018 82 2.79

79 2.67 2017 86 2.43

2016 68 2.84

OVERALL GPA

GPA Year TVAAS n= 3 Year n= 3 Year Avg

<3.00

2018 2.88 16

16 2.40 2017 2.05 21

2016 2.36 11

3.00-3.49

2018 2.21 71

68 2.36 2017 2.29 62

2016 2.56 70

>3.49

2018 2.71 63

62 2.72 2017 2.62 71

2016 2.87 52

71

Licensure Type Analysis Disaggregating the data by clinical experience type (traditional=student teaching, job-embedded=alternate), job-embedded practitioners (JEP) are performing

better (.31) than traditional students. After a slight dip in 2017 at 2.37, traditional completers bumped back up to 2.55, but still below the 2016 2.62. JEP 2016

3.30 TVAAS average could be skewing the data, something worth monitoring in the next few cycles.

Overall Program

Program Year TVAAS n= 3 Year n= 3 Year Avg

Traditional

2018 2.55 130

123 2.52 2017 2.37 112

2016 2.62 128

Job-Embedded

2018 2.66 44

43 2.83 2017 2.50 40

2016 3.30 44

72

Traditional Student Teaching Completers

ACT/GPA Analysis Looking at traditional completers, who are true UTM trained completers, ACT and GPA have an impact on TVAAS. With the benchmark of 22 ACT, those who are

at or above an ACT of 22 score .2 higher on TVAAS than completers with less than a 22 ACT over the three-year period. Completers under the 22 ACT TVAAS

average continues to decrease yearly. GPA has a strong effect on TVAAS 3-year average. When scoring under a 3.00 GPA, TVAAS averages a 1.91 among

completers. When GPA is between 3.00-3.50, TVAAS average increased .58 to 2.49, and when above 3.5, it increased .88 to 2.79 among completers. Those below

a 3.00 GPA TVAAS average has been increasing yearly (.6 over three-year period) while those in between 3.00-3.50 GPA has been decreasing (.57 over three-year

period). This is worth monitoring in the next few cycles. Since the number of those with a GPA under 3.00 is lower, the 3.00-3.50 GPA group is having a stronger

negative impact.

Traditional ACT

Level Year n= TVAAS GPA 3 Year n= 3 Year TVAAS

3 Year GPA

<22

2018 35 2.31 3.32

27 2.40 3.30 2017 24 2.46 3.33

2016 23 2.48 3.24

>21

2018 76 2.67 3.52

67 2.67 3.50 2017 71 2.38 3.51

2016 55 3.04 3.45

Traditional GPA

Level Year n= TVAAS ACT 3 Year n= 3 Year TVAAS

3 Year ACT

<3.00

2018 11 2.27 22

11 1.91 21.72 2017 13 1.77 21.5

2016 9 1.67 21.7

3.00-3.49

2018 64 2.31 22

52 2.49 22.33 2017 50 2.40 22.7

2016 41 2.88 22.4

>3.49

2018 53 2.83 24.5

44 2.79 24.40 2017 49 2.49 24.3

2016 30 3.20 24.4

73

TVAAS Score Breakdown Disaggregating traditional data by the effectiveness level reveals similar trends mentioned previously. As TVAAS level increases, so does 3-year average of ACT

and GPA, for the exception from Level 1 to Level 2, which showed a slight dip (-.14). The benchmark developed by the Tennessee Department of Education’s

(TDOE) annual report is for TVAAS is to be at or above a 3, with 4’s and 5’s being weighted even higher on the Tennessee Educator Preparation Report Card.

UTM is concerned about the large number of Level 1 scores, and hopes the new induction position will impact this in the years to come.

Traditional TVAAS by Effectiveness Level

Level Year n= ACT GPA 3 Year n= 3 Year ACT 3 Year GPA

1

2018 47 22.5 3.44

35 22.84 3.40 2017 41 23.4 3.43

2016 16 22.4 3.23

2

2018 16 23.1 3.37

16 22.70 3.32 2017 20 23.1 3.33

2016 13 21.6 3.25

3

2018 35 22.7 3.37

33 23.16 3.45 2017 31 23.1 3.46

2016 33 23.7 3.53

4

2018 13 23.5 3.52

10 23.67 3.47 2017 9 24.5 3.55

2016 8 23 3.30

5

2018 19 24.5 3.66

14 23.75 3.59 2017 11 22.4 3.59

2016 12 23.8 3.47

74

Admit Type Analysis TVAAS data reveals interesting results when broken down by the admission type. A full admit is a candidate who is admitted to the EPP by having a 22 or above

ACT score and a 2.75+ GPA. If a candidate does not have the required 22 ACT, they can take the Praxis CORE (formerly PPST) and pass all 3 to get into the EPP

Previously candidates could get in on appeal if they did not have the required ACT or Praxis CORE score, but UTM has changed its policy for appeals. As of August

2018, candidates are now required to take the residual ACT if under a 22 ACT. If candidates score a 22 ACT on the residual, they are fully admitted. If they score a

21 ACT (state policy requirement is 21 but leaves EPP’s to decide the exact score), they can be admitted on appeal. If a candidate is below 21 ACT after first

residual attempt, they can either try to retake the residual or pass all 3 portions of the Praxis CORE test. If the candidate does not achieve either of the last two

(plus having the required 2.75 GPA), they cannot be admitted to the EPP GRE are graduate completers, and job-embedded is an alternative route to licensure

where the candidate is already teaching while working on licensure requirements.

Completers who were under full admit type had a higher TVAAS average in 2018 than all other admit types. In 2017, completers who were formerly admitted by

the passing all parts of the Praxis CORE had the highest TVAAS average, but then dipped drastically in 2018. Those who were formerly admitted on appeal

increased .47 from 2017 to 2018. This asks the question does admit type to the program effect TVAAS in any way? With the numbers not revealing anything

conclusive, UTM will continue to monitor this disaggregation point.

Traditional TVAAS by Admit

Admit Year n= TVAAS ACT GPA

Full

2018 51 2.65 24.1 3.48

2017 75 2.39 24.5 3.50

2016

CORE/PPST

2018 23 2.22 19.6 3.42

2017 16 2.88 19.7 3.47

2016

GRE

2018 6 2.50 24.0

2017 3 1.66

2016

Appeal

2018 19 2.37 19.4 3.26

2017 21 1.90 19.5 3.25

2016

Job-Embedded

2018 44 2.66

2017 40 2.50

2016

75

Campus Analysis The campus a completer graduates from does show effect on TVAAS average. True 4-year undergraduates show the 2nd highest TVAAS scores in 2018 with a

2.67, with Selmer at 3.00 having the highest. Other campus scores are concerning with how low TVAAS averages have been and is a trend worth monitoring and

potentially discussing changes in the coming years.

By Campus

Admit Year n= TVAAS ACT GPA

UG

2018 91 2.67 23.2 3.42

2017 81 2.40 23.5 3.46

Martin (PB)

2018 1 1.00 19

2017 3 2.00 22.5

MSIL

2018 6 2.50

2017 3 1.66

Parsons

2018 20 2.20 22.2 3.47

2017 14 2.29 21.8 3.39

Ripley

2018 4 1.25 23 3.47

2017 8 2.25 22.8 3.36

Selmer

2018 7 3.00 21.5 2.57

2017 7 2.28 24.5 3.5

Jackson

2018 2 1.50 21 3.12

2017 1 1.00 21 2.86

76

CAEP/AIMS Annual Reporting

2020 CAEP/AIMS Annual Reporting CAEP Annual Reporting reflects on the previous 3 years of reporting to identify any trends for program improvement. Some data components are a year behind because of the timing of when the annual report is due. The CAEP Annual Measures can be found at https://utm.edu/departments/educate/assessment.php. Below is the main summary for the reporting, section 4.2. 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? The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) at the University of Tennessee at Martin (UTM) has reviewed multiple years of data and has found strengths and weaknesses among our programs. The Annual Reporting Measures have come from completer data, TVAAS data released by SAS, and 2019 Tennessee Department of Education EPP Annual Reports with 2015-18 completer data. Emerging weaknesses identified are completer TVAAS scores, the percentage of diverse completers, and high-need endorsement area. The number of completers who were admitted to the EPP by appeal in 2018-19 increased from 2017-18 by 4 candidates (23 total). To appeal, a candidate is below the required 22 ACT and has not passed the Praxis CORE series tests. These appeals hurt UTM on the TDOE Annual Report in the category of percentage with ACT of 21+ and passed Praxis CORE areas. Identified strengths for UT Martin’s EPP include employment and retention of candidates, observation and Level of Effectiveness scores, and annual report metrics. Domain 2 of the EPP Report Card, Employment, evaluates a provider’s performance in preparing educators to begin and remain teaching in Tennessee public schools. UTM “Exceeded Expectations” in this domain. “Exceeds Expectations” means the provider received 75% or more of possible points. The rate of first-year employment in Tennessee public schools for UT Martin is 86.8% compared to the state average of 77.2%. UT Martin’s second year retention rate is 96.6% compared to the state average of 94%. UT Martin exceeds the state average (83.6%) third year retention rate at 90.3%. Domain 5 of the EPP Report Card, Provider Impact, reports on the effectiveness of a provider’s completers in Tennessee public school classrooms. The 2019 Report Card reveals strong Classroom Observation and Level Overall Effectiveness (LOE) scores for UT Martin. UT Martin’s percentage of cohort members whose Classroom Observation scores at a Level 3 or higher is 97% compared to the state average of 95.2%. LOE combines Classroom Observation and TVAAS. UT Martin’s percentage (92.7%) of cohort members whose LOE scores are Level 3 or above exceeded the state average of 91.6%. Discuss any emerging, long-term, expected or unexpected trends? TVAAS has been an area of discussion with EPP’s in the state of Tennessee and the TDOE. Many EPP’s do not trust the reliability of these numbers released by the state. First, the state of Tennessee has struggled with TNReady (online) testing for the last three years, resulting in test scores being thown out and/or teachers having the option of choosing whether to use the scores or not. Second, TVAAS does not give an accurate representation of the EPP as a whole, as only

https://utm.edu/departments/educate/assessment.php

77

about 40% of our completers receive TVAAS scores. Finally, UTM has completers in the report numbers that are teaching out of the area they were orginially prepared for, yet we are still being held accountable for that score (teaching by add-on endorsement). On the Educator Preparation Tennessee Report Card, TVAAS is held as the highest weighted category. Level of Effectiveness would provide a better metric for completers. The TDOE established benchmark for Praxis II testing is 90% pass rate by the 2nd attempt. UT Martin’s Pass Rate has remained constant at 99% for the 3-year average for undergraduate candidates. In theory, this is excellent and something UTM is excited about. However, the data the state uses for EPP TN Report Card and TDOE Annual Reports are only from completers, so UTM needed to look deeper at the data to get a better picture of what tests candidates (completers and those who do not complete licensure) struggle with. UTM looked at data for candidates who applied to student teaching, 16% of candidates were denied admission due to failing the test. The data revealed Praxis II tests for the areas of Physical Education (55.6% denied because of failing or not taking the test), Art (33.3% denied because of failing test), History (28.6% denied because of failing test), Family and Consumer Science (100% denied (N=1) because of failing test), Spanish (66.7% denied because of failing test), Middle Grades 6-8 (24.8% denied because of failing test), Elementary Education (13.7% denied because of failing test), and Early Childhood PreK-3 (7.1% denied because of failing test) were areas of weakness for UTM during the 2018-19 academic year. It is important to look at the n= score for each of the content areas. One completer could make a significant impact with a lower the n= score. We will monitor this year over year to see coming trends on the TDOE Annual Report. Additionally, to address this weakness, all faculty teaching in licensure areas are taking their applicable Praxis II exams. We have received positive feedback and learning from each experience. We will have further conversations throughout this next year on possibly rotating when we recommend students take the exams are taken at the most appropriate times. We will continue to monitor this over the next year. An emerging trend on the Educator Preparation Tennessee Report Card that we are monitoring is Satisfaction. The Satisfaction domain reports how well completers feel that their preparation program prepared them for teaching. This is the first year that data is reported on the Report Card. It is exciting to see that 86.4% of UT Martin’s completers feel prepared from their coursework, 89.9% of completers feel prepared from the clinical experience, and 87.5% of completers feel that they are overall prepared to be effective teachers. We will be monitoring this new piece of data over time. Discuss any programmatic/provider-wide changes being planned as a result of these data? To increase UTM’s undergraduate candidates to meet the benchmark of 95% of undergraduate candidates obtained a qualifying score on an approved admissions assessment (ACT, SAT, or Praxis Core), the EPP has developed a new appeals process that started Fall 2018. Candidates who score a 22+ ACT are fully admitted (along with other factors). Candidates who score a 21 or below will first retake the residual ACT. UTM decided this because it is cheaper than the Praxis CORE tests, candidate will have had college coursework to help bolster knowledge and helps strengthen the quality of incoming candidate to the EPP. If a candidate scores or maintains a 21 ACT score, the candidate will be accepted into the program on appeal. If the student does not receive a 21+ ACT on the residual, the candidate then has the option of taking the residual ACT again or the Praxis CORE tests. The only way to get into the EPP after first residual ACT is taken is for the candidate to score a 21+ residual ACT or pass ALL THREE parts of the Praxis CORE tests. UTM does fear that this will hurt enrollment and underrepresented race numbers within the undergraduate program. This is also a larger concern of UTM that the TDOE continues to create more challenges to where eventually there will not be enough teachers to teach in the state. The EPP recognizes a lack of diversity among candidates and is currently implementing several initiatives (PDF) to increase diversity throughout the program. The EPP secured a partnership with Clemson University’s Call Me MiSTER® (PDF) program to provide tuition assistance, academic, social, and cultural support, and

http://www.utm.edu/caep/_pdfs/EPP%20Recruitment%20Plan.pdf

http://www.utm.edu/caep/_pdfs/Call%20Me%20Mister%20Overview.pdf

78

assistance with job placement to under-served, socio-economically disadvantaged, and educationally at-risk students seeking a degree in STEM education. The first UT Martin cohort began in Fall 2017. Since TVAAS has become an area of weakness, UTM has hired a full-time position for teacher induction. The purpose of this induction/new teacher program position is to support UTM completers as they transition to the classroom and assist their growth as new teachers. The New Teacher Program Manager and Director of the Educator Preparation Program attended district and superintendent meetings and contacted all superintendents in Northwest Tennessee to share the vision of the program and ways to access resources. The program was also discussed during the LEA meetings as a means to promote the program and obtain their feedback on focus areas, such as classroom management. Our goal is to identify first and second year teacher completer cohorts each year, uncover needs by self-evaluation, administrator evaluations, and student success. Thus far, 100% of her requests have been for classroom management. Our first response was to go onsite to meet with administrators and observe the teacher. We also provided more COMP training, revised the mode for COMP, increased Residency I hours from 30 to 300 to allow candidates more time in the classroom. We look forward to how this could grow completer TVAAS, especially within those first few crucial years. Are benchmarks available for comparison? Yes Are measures widely shared? How? With whom?

Yes. Presentations with faculty and staff from the EPP as well as individual program area meetings.

79

SKYFACTOR SURVEYS

ALUMNI SURVEY The alumni survey is taken annually, and surveys completers who would have completed their 1st year or 5th year of teaching. 2017-18 saw the highest return

rate ever for the survey with 84 out of 278 completing the survey, a 30.2% return rate. The rating scale is from 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest. 5.5 is the

established baseline by Skyfactor.

Skyfactor surveys are composed of ‘factors,’ or a group of questions, that pertain to a specific area related to the program. In the executive summary, Skyfactor,

based on the survey results, creates a list of recommendations for the program. The recommendations are listed as Top Priority, Maintain or Improve, Maintain,

and Monitor. Impact and Performance are the two measures of focus. Impact rating shows how high or low the impact of the factor is to the Overall Program

Effectiveness. Performance rating shows how we performed in a factor category.

Top Priority For the 2nd year in a row, the Top Priority for the EPP at UTM was the factor Satisfaction: Teacher Education Degree Furthered Career. The survey questions were

high impact to the Alumni Survey, and performance was low.

Looking into the specific questions that make up the top priority factor reveals some strong suggestions as to why this factor is so low in performance. Some of

these questions we have no control over. Q5, Q6, Q9, and Q10 are examples of this. Q5 and Q10 expanding your career options and enhancing upward mobility,

can only happen by alumni pursing a master’s degree, which require time and money, something teachers do not have enough of (Q9). Q6, assisting in selecting

a career, being lower does not make sense, as the student is the one who chooses the career. What UTM interprets these responses to mean is dissatisfaction

with education in general. Teachers are overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated. When teachers are underpaid, while having school loans to pay, to

consider an advanced degree requires taking more loans to achieve career option expansion and upward mobility. This factor is a picture of how teachers are

upset with the culture and demands of education, and we are one of the few places that frustration can be expressed.

Q7 can be improved upon, as UTM does have excellent contact with alumni, but not a place where all that comes together for education graduates. This needs

to be a continued goal for our program. It’s easy to forget that our alumni were provided access to potential employers in their career fair during student

80

teaching semester (Q7). To provide continual access to employers, especially as far as 4 years removed from graduation would be hard, as graduates move

locations, change names, and have different contact information. Q11 UTM is currently working on through the new Educator Disposition Assessment

instrument adopted August 2018, but there is currently no concern with that question, as it is above the 5.5 benchmark.

It is important to note that when filtered by true undergraduate Martin completers, the mean dropped even further to 4.83, indicating that the extended

campuses are providing completers satisfaction in their teaching degrees when relating to furthering career.

81

Maintain or Improve In this category, nothing is really noteworthy as the performance is all high on the performance of these factors. The recommendations to improve are simply

because the impact is high on the factors (meaning more questions that are weighted heavier). Q72 from the factor Learning: Enhanced Abilitiees to Foster

Student Development was marked as an item to monitor for this year, but the mean increased from 5.51 last year to 5.66 this year.

82

Monitor While this factor is mentioned in the Monitor category, it should be a top priority. Even though the impact of the questions in this factor our low, this is the 3rd

year in a row it has shown low performance.

When examing the factor further, the overall mean dropped .03 from last year. While that does not seem significant, all questions are still below the 5.5

benchmark. Q87 Assessing student learning with technology has been consistently the lowest over the three year period within the factor, and UTM is

suggesting this as an area for improvement. It is important to note that when this is filtered by only undergraduate Martin completers, the mean jumped to 5.5,

which is the benchmark, indicating the problem with this specific factor may be the extended campuses.

83

Institution Specific Questions With Institution Specific Questions (ISO), there are no established benchmarks. They are questions we wanted to know about our alumni. 96.9% of surveyors

have at least one-year teaching experience, and only 6.3% of completers were advanced level completers. This means UTM is getting a true picture of its

traditional undergraduate program. 73.4% of surveyors are true undergraduate program completers.

85

Q3 ISO was put in to see the percentage of completers who were teaching out of field, as we were seeing completers TVAAS scores being considered outside of

their intended endorsement area. UTM is being held accountable to those scores, even though UTM did not train them in those endorsement areas.

86

Q4 ISO exists because CAEP requires that we collect promotional data yearly. When filtered, out of 35 surveyors who have taught minimum 3 years, 20 (57.1%)

of them have advanced to a professional license. 3 years of experience is the first chance a teacher can advance to a professional license. 20% have been named

teacher of the year in their school. 37.1% have completed or are currently enrolled in an advanced degree program, which is 1.7% higher than last year. The

percentages below did not recalculate with the filter, which is why the wrong percentage was being displayed.

87

Exit Survey The UTM Exit Survey is on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being lowest and 7 being best, and a baseline established by Skyfactor of 5.5. The survey is sent out to student

teachers who were about to complete the program and graduate. 130 surveys were sent out, with 107 returned (82.3% response rate). Response rate increased

from last year’s 56%.

Top Priority Skyfactor listed no priorities in this section that need focus from the EPP. This is the 2nd straight year and something UTM should be proud of.

Maintain or Improve All factors in this category were well above the 5.5 benchmark, including all questions within the factors. Learning: Professional Development replaced

Satisfaction: Classmates from last year’s report. Last year only one question scored below a 5.5, which pertained to satisfaction of student teaching assignment.

This year that number is now above the 5.5 benchmark (5.62). UTM should keep investing current time efforts to these areas to ensure positive impact on this

survey.

88

Monitor For the 2nd straight year in a row, the only area Skyfactor listed to monitor was ‘Satisfaction: Career Services.’ The performance in that category was low, but the

overall impact to the survey was low because of the weight of the factor. The Alumni survey’s top priority pertained to satisfaction in teacher education degree

furthering career. Pairing that priority with this factor reveals a need to involve career services department more. This will be an area for improvement.

Looking closer at Factor 5, Satisfaction: Career Services, the whole factor is below the 5.5 benchmark (mean=5.04). Question Q23, Access to school’s alumni to

cultivate career opportunities, was reflected in a similar manner in the alumni survey pertaining to access to alumni. This question was the lowest in the factor at

4.74, .34 lower than last year.

89

Employer Survey The Skyfactor Employer Survey is based on the response of those in the alumni survey. The alumni survey asks alums to put their principal’s email in the survey,

which triggers the employer survey to be sent to them. 62 of the surveyors in the alumni survey has taught 1+ years. 15 employer surveys were returned, for a

return rate of 24.2%. The survey is on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being lowest and 7 being best, and a baseline established by Skyfactor of 5.5.

Q4 was the only one to fall below the 5.5 benchmark. Q9, applying knowledge of assessment strategies at 5.5 almost fell below the benchmark, and declined

from last year’s 5.72. Q9 was also noted last year as an area to monitor. A similar trend with assessment appeared in Q87 of the Alumni Survey, using technology

to assess student learning. Q4 is worth monitoring to see if it continues to be a low scorer in the years to come. Q9, and coincidentally Q87 of the Alumni Survey,

are worth discussions to see if an issue needs addressing regarding assessment within the EPP.

90

One thing UTM should be proud of is 12 out of 14 surveyors said UTM is as prepared, better prepared, or are the best prepared in comparison to other

graduates from other EPP’s.

91

Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher Survey Report Skyfactor has to custom surveys related to the perception of our student teaching process. See the report below.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/18-19 UTM Student Teaching Report.pdf

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/18-19%20UTM%20Student%20Teaching%20Report.pdf

92

TQP Grant Goals/Learning Objectives The spreadsheet below aligns all questions within Skyfactor to TQP Grant Goals and Learning Objectives.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_docs/18-19 UTM Assessment Grid.xlsx

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_docs/18-19%20UTM%20Assessment%20Grid.xlsx

93

LiveText Key Assessments

Educator Disposition Assessment

Overall This is the first year of UTM using the new Educator Disposition Assessment (EDA) through Watermark. The instrument has full validity and reliability already

established. Ratings go from 2-Meets Expectation, 1-Developing, and 0-Needs Improvement. Evaluations of the candidate occur at each gate point of the

program to ensure candidates are developing dispositions of effective teachers. If a candidate scores a 0 on one of the areas, the candidate must meet with the

dispositions committee to come up with a remediation plan moving forward. If remediation plan is not fulfilled, the candidate is removed from the program.

Candidates are introduced and educated on the EDA before Level I gate point in EDU 211.

Analysis of the data when broken out by evaluator reveals the most growth happening by university supervisor. The university supervisor in Level I and II is the

professor of the course. Student Teaching the university supervisor is a wide variety of faculty and adjuncts. From start to finish university supervisors rating

grew +.19 of candidates. I think this is the most reliable of the assessors, as the supervisors are the ones who have the most interaction with the candidates from

start to finish of the EPP. One data point that was interesting was candidate self-perceptions. In Level I, candidates rated themselves higher than their supervisor

by a full .1 point. This could be because in Level I candidates only observe a classroom. In Level II, candidates teach their first lesson. By Level II, candidates’ self-

evaluation decreased .02, while supervisors’ ratings went up .12. A possible conclusion can be that candidates see themselves more prepared when starting, but

when they must be the teacher the first time and lead a classroom, that perception changes. Maybe more individuals who make laws about education should be

required to have teaching experience first, then a more realistic expectation of education would exist. By the end, candidates rated themselves lower or at what

their assessors did, signifying that candidates can be their harshest critic at times.

UTM looks forward to what new data reveals here in the years ahead.

Assessor Gate Point Year N= Average

Score Growth

University Supervisor Level I 2018-19 59 1.78

Level II/Residency 2018-19 53 1.90

Student Teaching Placement I 2018-19 125 1.92

Student Teaching Placement II 2018-19 129 1.97 0.19

Candidate Level I 2018-19 30 1.88

Level II/Residency 2018-19 16 1.86


Cooperating Teacher Level II/Residency 2018-19 59 1.89

Student Teaching Placement I 2018-19 134 1.91


94

Candidate Self-Evaluation Looking specifically at candidate self-perception, UTM examined growth from Level I to II, and then Level II to end of program. UTM wanted both growth scores

because Level I is observation only and Level II is the 1st time a student teaches. We wanted to see how perceptions changed once the candidate was required to

be the one fully in charge of a classroom. Areas that decreased the most between Level I and II were collaborates effectively with stakeholders (-.2) and exhibits

the social and emotional intelligence to promote personal and educational goals/suitability (-.05). This essentially means are the candidates flexible, do they

maintain a respectful tone (behavior management) when communicating with students, do they show grit, do they demonstrate maturity in the way the

candidates respond to situations, and are they sensitive to feelings of others. From Level II to end of the program, the only one that decreased was

professionalism indicator. Candidates may still be learning what it means to be professional educator, something that takes years to learn. UTM hopes to see this

grow as more programs dive into the yearlong residency.

EDA Indicator N= Average Score Growth

FEM Intern

1. Demonstrates Effective Oral Communication Skills

Educator Disposition Assessment Level I 30 1.90

Educator Disposition Assessment Level II 16 1.88 -0.02

Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 2 S.T. Self 130 1.89 0.01

2. Demonstrates Effective Written Communication Skills


Educator Disposition Assessment Level II 16 1.88 0.02


3. Demonstrates professionalism



Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 2 S.T. Self 130 1.94 -0.06

4. Demonstrates a positive and enthusiastic attitude




5. Demonstrates preparedness in teaching and learning




6. Exhibits an appreciation of and value for cultural and academic diversity

95




7. Collaborates effectively with stakeholders




8. Demonstrates self-regulated learner behaviors/takes initiative




9. Exhibits the social and emotional intelligence to promote personal and educational goals/stability




96

Cooperating Teachers Every area showed slight growth except for oral communication rated by cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers have not been trained on the EDA, but

since they are educators, they should best know what these components mean and what dispositions it takes to be an effective educator. Solid numbers for the

most part. Cooperating teachers are aware of the level these students are at upon entering their classroom and the expectations.


FEM Mentor


Educator Disposition Assessment Level II 59 1.90

Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 1 S.T. by C.T. 134 1.89

Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 2 S.T. by C.T. 132 1.90 0.00






















97












98

University Supervisors The largest growths occurred in the candidate ratings by the university supervisors. All categories but one grew by +.2 from start to finish of the program, with

the largest being self-regulated learner behaviors/takes initiative (+.42). This means candidates grew the most by recognizing weaknesses and seeking solutions

before asking for support and researches/implements most effective teaching styles using evidence. A close second was exhibits social and emotional

intelligence to promote personal and educational goals/stability. The description of this area was mentioned above. The lowest growth came from

professionalism at +.04. It had a high rating from the start.


FEM Supervisor




Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 1 S.T. by U.S. 125 1.88

Educator Disposition Assessment Placement 2 S.T. by U.S. 129 1.96 0.20




















99






















100

TEAM Evaluations

Overall Along with the EDA, the TEAM evaluation is one of our EPP key assessments at each gate point. TEAM is scored on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being the highest and 1

being the lowest ratings. It is important to note that this data can be triangulated with Domain 5 TEAM evaluation data from the TDOE Annual Report. Using the

last evaluation of student teaching and comparing it to TDOE Annual Report TEAM data can tell UTM whether our cooperating teachers and university

supervisors are rating our candidates higher or lower than what the candidate is truly scoring once they are a completer.

Candidates are evaluated multiple times throughout the program, starting with their first lesson in Level II/Residency I semester. They are then evaluated

formally 4 times during student teaching by university supervisors and 2 times by their cooperating teacher.

Upon initial analysis, completers are rated at a lower rate at a 3.73 overall TEAM evaluation average (see TDOE TEAM Evaluation Initial Licensure Route section

below) than candidates’ final TEAM evaluation average within the program at 4.11. While in the program, candidates do show excellent growth in their scores.

University supervisors rate them +.91 higher from start to the finish and cooperating teachers a full +1.0 from start to finish of the program. University

supervisors do tend to rate candidates lower than cooperating teachers.

Something of note is the fluxuation on N= while in student teaching. Those numbers should be consistent, and inconsistencies means individuals are not turning

evaluations into LiveText. Moving forward, these evaluations need to be checked at the same time of the semester as EDA is for 0 ratings.

Assessor Gate point Year N= Average

Score Growth

University Supervisor Level II/Residency* 2018-19 74 3.15

Student Teaching Placement 1 Observation 1 2018-19 121 3.40



Student Teaching Placement 2 Observation 2 2018-19 126 4.06 0.91

Cooperating Teacher Level II/Residency* 2018-19 74 3.15

Student Teaching Placement 1 2018-19 129 3.98

Student Teaching Placement 2 2018-19 129 4.15 1.00 *Candidates in Residency evaluated by University Supervisor and Candidates in Level II evaluated by Cooperating Teacher

101

University Supervisors Analysis of TEAM by university supervisor, and broken down by indicator, revealed the number of 3+ averages on first TEAM evaluations in Level II/Residency I

were high. This may be worth some discussion with supervisors, as this is a candidate’s first ever formal TEAM evaluation. UTM would expect that number to be

a little lower, as a 3 average is considered ‘rock solid’ by TDOE’s own statements. Candidates did make excellent gains between first and last evaluations within

the program. When looking at each sub-indicator by indicator, the lowest averages on final evaluation were Instruction: Grouping Students and Problem Solving

(3.83), Instruction: Thinking (3.85), and Planning: Assessment and Instruction: Questioning (3.89). Highest sub-indicator by indicator were Environment:

Respectful Climate (4.48), Environment (4.36), and Instruction: Teacher Content Knowledge (4.20). Completer ratings were lower in every category compared to

the final observation of the program.

TEAM By Indicator University Supervisor N= Average Score Growth

Environment

Level II 37 3.46

ST Observation by US 1 121 3.80



ST Observation by US 4 126 4.36 0.91

Environment - Expectations

Level II 37 3.25





Environment - Managing Student Behavior

Level II 37 3.07





Environment - Respectful Climate

Level II 37 3.52




102


Instruction - Academic Feedback

Level II 37 3.13





Instruction - Activities and Materials

Level II 37 3.17





Instruction - Activities and Materials: Integration of Technology

Level II 37 3.01





Instruction - Grouping Students

Level II 37 3.10





Instruction - Lesson Structure and Pacing

Level II 37 3.02





Instruction - Motivating Students

Level II 37 3.25

103





Instruction - Presenting Instructional Content

Level II 37 3.09





Instruction - Problem Solving

Level II 37 2.92





Instruction - Questioning

Level II 37 2.97





Instruction - Standards and Objectives

Level II 37 3.21





Instruction - Teacher Content Knowledge

Level II 37 3.16




104


Instruction - Teacher Knowledge of Students

Level II 37 3.22





Instruction - Thinking

Level II 37 2.95





Planning - Assessment

Level II 37 3.07





Planning - Student Work

Level II 37 3.20





Planning-Instructional Plans

Level II 37 3.27





105

Cooperating Teachers Similar observations can be made as mentioned above in the university supervisor section. The lowest ratings for candidates when done by cooperating teachers

were Environment: Managing Student Behavior (3.91), Instruction: Questioning (3.84), and Planning: Assessment (4.10). The highest ratings were Environment:

Respectful Culture (4.55), Instruction: Activities and Materials-Integration of Technology (4.39), and Planning: Instructional Plans (4.18).

TEAM by Indicator Cooperating Teachers N= Average Score Growth

Environment

Level II 37 3.46

ST Observation by CT 1 129 4.42

ST Observation by CT 2 129 4.51 1.05

Environment - Expectations

Level II 37 3.25



Environment - Managing Student Behavior

Level II 37 3.07



Environment - Respectful Climate

Level II 37 3.52



Instruction - Academic Feedback

Level II 37 3.13



Instruction - Activities and Materials

Level II 37 3.17



Instruction - Activities and Materials: Integration of Technology

Level II 37 3.01

106



Instruction - Grouping Students

Level II 37 3.10



Instruction - Lesson Structure and Pacing

Level II 37 3.02



Instruction - Motivating Students

Level II 37 3.25



Instruction - Presenting Instructional Content

Level II 37 3.09



Instruction - Problem Solving

Level II 37 2.92



Instruction - Questioning

Level II 37 2.97



Instruction - Standards and Objectives

Level II 37 3.21



Instruction - Teacher Content Knowledge

Level II 37 3.16


107


Instruction - Teacher Knowledge of Students

Level II 37 3.22



Instruction - Thinking

Level II 37 2.95



Planning - Assessment

Level II 37 3.07



Planning - Student Work

Level II 37 3.20



Planning-Instructional Plans

Level II 37 3.27



108

TDOE TEAM Evaluation Initial Licensure Route Use this measure to see what candidates are scoring on TEAM once in the field.



Percentage of Completers with Level 3+ Observation 90.5% 97.1% 97.6% 94.7% 95.2% 93.0% 619 93.7% 94.6% -0.90%







Instruction 3.5 3.5 3.3 593 3.5 3.5

Planning 3.7 3.7 3.5 591 3.7 3.7

Environment 4.1 4.1 3.8 589 4 4




Present Content 3.6 3.5 3.3 593 3.5 3.5



Questioning 3.2 3.3 3.2 593 3.2 3.2



Content Knowledge 4.1 4 3.8 593 4 4


Thinking 3.2 3.2 3.2 593 3.2 3.2

Problem Solving 3.2 3.1 3 593 3.1 3.1

Instructional Plans 4 4 3.9 591 3.9 3.9

Student Work 3.8 3.7 3.7 591 3.7 3.7

Assessment 3.5 3.5 3.4 591 3.5 3.5

Expectations 3.8 3.8 3.6 589 3.8 3.8

Managing Student Behavior 3.9 4 3.6 589 3.9 3.9

109

Environment 4.2 4.2 4 589 4.2 4.2


110

Evaluations for Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors Below are the overall ratings of university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Individual ratings are not shared publicly, but rather with the Clinical Experience

Coordinator to determine if certain supervisors and cooperating teachers need to be used again (i.e. low ratings year over year).

Evaluator Evaluating N= Average

Score

Cooperating Teacher University Supervisor 260 4.57

Candidate University Supervisor 160 4.77

Cooperating Teacher 290 4.72

University Supervisor Cooperating Teacher 243 4.15

111

School Counseling Data UTM has a Master in Education with a concentration in School Counseling K-12 licensure. UTM candidates are required to take the 5421 Praxis II Professional

School Counselor and pass for completion. Examining 5421 Praxis II test data from the ETS website, UTM candidates pass the test at a 1.24% higher rate

compared to national scores, and 5.09% higher rate than the state of Tennessee. Average score for UTM is 171.7, which is 2.7 higher than national score mean

and 1.82 higher than the state mean. Categorical scores can be found starting at bottom of page 2- and 6-year rates can be found on the last page.

School Counseling data can be found at the link below.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/SchoolCounselingPraxis.pdf

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/SchoolCounselingPraxis.pdf

112

Instructional Leadership Data UTM has a Master in Education with a concentration in Instructional Leadership K-12 licensure. This is an administration licensure program. UTM candidates are

required to take and pass the 6011 Praxis II School Leadership Licensure Assessment test for completion of the program. Examination of the 6011 Praxis II test

data, UTM candidates pass at a 100% rate, 6.43% higher than nationally and 5.75% higher than state. Mean scores are all relatively the same. Categorical scores

can be found starting bottom of page 2- and 6-year rates can be found on the last page.

Instructional Leadership data can be found at the link below.

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/InstructionalLeadershipPraxis.pdf

http://www.utm.edu/departments/educate/_pdfs/InstructionalLeadershipPraxis.pdf

113

2018-19 UTM EPP Strengths Below are the noticeable strengths of the UTM Educator Preparation Program.

✓ Job-embedded program continues to excel in numerous ways o High number of male and minority completers o High need endorsement areas o TVAAS scores higher than traditional completers o Increasing enrollment numbers

✓ Underrepresented race and ethnicity have increased for both traditional and job-embedded completers ✓ Employment and retention numbers among completers remains stout ✓ LOE and observation scores continue to rise ✓ Traditional licensure route completer numbers continue to grow ✓ TVAAS level 3+ average increased from 2015-16 to 2016-17 completers ✓ Praxis II pass rates by 2nd attempt among completers continue to be solid ✓ Completers seem to be satisfied with their career choice of teaching, as shown on the alumni survey and retention numbers ✓ No top priorities listed to address in exit survey

114

Continuous Improvement Goals of 2018-19 and Achievement Recommend continuous improvement goals are derived straight out of the data throughout the whole data guidebook.

More involvement with Career Planning and Development department.

▪ Ongoing

Create social media and events to connect current students and alumni to other alumni.

▪ EPP has created and implemented social media accounts to help bridge this gap

Increase Skyfactor Exit Survey response rate.

▪ Increased to over 80% return rate from last year’s 56%

Decrease number of appeals admitted to the EPP

▪ New appeals process was implemented in August 2018. Appeals increased with the recent completers, but overtime appeals will decrease to

very few if any.

Develop new appeals process for EPP

▪ Completed August 2018.

Simply and redevelop Key Assessments within the EPP

▪ Key assessments have been narrowed from one in each course to edTPA, Praxis II tests, ACT, GPA, TEAM evaluation, Educator Disposition

Assessment, Interviews, Skyfactor Surveys, Tennessee Department of Education Annual Report, and Tennessee State Board of Education Report

Card for Teacher Preparation.

Bolster the implementation of Technology within teaching preparation.

▪ Had conversation with University of Louisville on an ISTE evaluation rubric they were developing and using with in UTM’s EPP but have not heard

from them since. Therefore, I’d recommend moving this to 2019 goals.

Adoption, training, and implementation of Education Disposition Assessment (EDA) tool.

▪ Completed.

Develop and implement 1 new data component to use for 2019-20 academic year.

▪ edTPA, Key Assessment data, and Student Teaching entrance gate point data all new.

Add line item of 1st generation student and/or socioeconomic status to disaggregation of data.

▪ TBD. Communications have happened with I.T. Banner code exists. Need to add to scripts in Argos.

Continue to develop and brainstorm more ways to recruit diverse students.

▪ Ongoing.

Collaborate with EPP about the GPA correlations with TVAAS level scores and how we can use that data to improve program.

▪ Ongoing.

Collaborate with University Admissions/Enrollment to make sure ALL students (undergraduate, graduate, post-baccalaureate, job-embedded, and

campuses) must report ACT/SAT.

▪ Still has not happened yet after a couple discussions. Moving to 2019 goal.

Decrease percentage of those being denied entrance into student teaching because of Praxis II test.

▪ Ongoing

115

Continuous Improvement Goals for CAEP 2025 Instead of having a plethora of goals like last year, UTM assessment coordinator spend time diving into the themes that ran across all data points to identify

weaknesses that need improvement. It is recommended that all efforts from faculty and staff of the EPP be devoted to these themes.

I. Assessment

a. This mainly has to do with how our candidates and completers assess their students, NOT how UTM assesses our candidates. Recommendations

to improve our assessment strategies and application of those strategies (Skyfactor surveys), assessment of candidates/completers students by

using technology, and the TEAM evaluation Planning: Assessment indicator.

II. Technology

a. Including the mention above about using technology to assess students, this pertains to using technology to improve the classroom experience

and to enhance student learning. UTM alumni have expressed this as a weakness for a 3-year period now and needs the topic needs addressing.

A good idea that needs discussion is how to we implement the use of technology in ALL classes that pertain to content and methods, as well as

technology uses teaching in schools that do not have many technological options. It cannot simply be how to use a promethean board.

Improvement on this issue would be shown through the Alumni and Employer surveys via Skyfactor.

III. Diversity

a. This is and should always be an ongoing discussion for UTM. Recruitment and retention of, and how to relate and teach, underrepresented races

and ethnicities.

IV. Literacy

a. With this topic being such a heavy focus with the TN Dept. of Education, this can never be addressed enough.

V. CAEP Advanced Standards

a. Assessment system needs to be developed with UTM’s advanced programs and data start being collected to ensure by next CAEP visit it is all

functioning smoothly.

VI. Standard Crosswalks and Alignment

a. Time spent in every endorsement area that offers licensure to create crosswalks where standards are introduced, reinforced, and mastered. This

to include which assignment the standard is tied to, in what class, and it is explicitly listed in the class syllabus. Standard tie in also needs to

occur with Key Assessments of EDA and TEAM. Canvas would be a great way to have this work done via technology.

the university of tennessee at martin · percentage passed plt 7-12 95.2% 100.0% 94.4% 98.1% 97.7%...

Documents