School of Education

Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)

  1. Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1) and
  2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2)

RISE Evaluation Data

From the 2014-15 data cycle, state reports indicate that 86 teachers were completers of our EPP and in their first three years of teaching. Of those 86, 19 were rated as highly effective (22.1%) and 66 were rated as effective (76.7%) for a total of 99% of our completers earning a ranking of either effective or highly effective during the 2014-15 academic year. In 2015-16, 83 teachers were included in this report. Of those 83, 62 (74.7%) were ranked effective and 15 (18.1%) were ranked highly effective for a total of 93% of our completers earning satisfactory rankings during the 2015-16 academic year. In the 2016-17 academic year, state reports indicate that 90 teachers were completers of our EPP and in their first three years of teaching. Of those 90, 67 (74.4%) were rated as effective and 19 (21.1%) were rated as highly effective for a total of 96% of our completers earning a ranking of either effective or highly effective during the 2016-17 academic year. From the 2017-18 data cycle, state reports indicate that 78 teachers were completers of our EPP and in their first three years of teaching. Of those 78, 19 were rated as highly effective (24.3%) and 58 were rated as effective (74.3%) for a total of 99% of our completers earning a ranking of either effective or highly effective during the 2014-15 academic year. Collectively, the data from the state-wide teacher evaluation system indicates that our completers’ are performing satisfactorily in the classroom (component 4.2). Considering that multiple items on the RISE evaluation rubric target teacher impact on student learning and that performance there influences a teacher’s overall ranking, there is also evidence that our completers are positively impacting K12 student learning and development as evaluated by their administrators (component 4.1). As the state does not provide item-level scores for analysis, it is difficult to determine what patterns may exist in completers’ performance. Likewise, since state data includes only rankings of effective and highly effective without reporting what rankings were received by the handful of completers not earning these designations, it is also difficult to make decisions regarding future program directions. This data, however, in conjunction with other sources discussed here as well as qualitative feedback from local stakeholders about the quality of completers from our EPP continue to shape decision-making regarding preparation.

State Principal Survey

Two cycles of state-administered principal survey data were made available to the EPP by the state. The 2017 principals survey resulted in eight (8) respondents identifying themselves as administrators of teachers/completers from our EPP. Of those eight (8) respondents, six (6) reported being satisfied with teachers from the EPP and two (2) reported being very satisfied. The 2018 principals survey garnered 17 respondents linked to our EPP with six (6) being very satisfied, ten (10) being satisfied, and one (1) being dissatisfied. Across both sets of survey data, completers’ ability to differentiate instruction is the primary relative weakness. The 2019 principals survey garnered 26 respondents linked to our EPP with seventeen (17) being very satisfied, eight (8) being satisfied, and one (1) being dissatisfied. Across both sets of survey data, completers’ ability to differentiate instruction is the primary relative weakness. Working with students with exceptionalities, working with parents, and working effectively within the school culture may also be areas of concern based on this small number of responses and the few rankings of dissatisfaction in each category. Conversely, creating inclusive learning environments and openly accepting suggestions or constructive feedback appear as relative strengths across the two implementations of the state-wide principals’ survey. While the state-administered survey most directly provides evidence that employers are satisfied with completers’ preparation (component 4.3), it also provides supplementary evidence regarding teacher effectiveness as items focus on core knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed in the classroom (component 4.2). Here again it is important to note that while this instrument provides valuable feedback, the small number of responses must be taken into consideration only in conjunction with other sources of data which corroborate findings here.

State Teacher Survey

Three cycles of state-administered survey data were made available to the EPP by the state. The 2016 teachers survey resulted in 15 respondents providing feedback regarding their preparation with the EPP. Of the 15 teachers included, nine (9) ranked their overall preparation as excellent and six (6) ranked it as good. Only isolated, single responses were recorded in the fair or poor ranking categories across survey responses. The most identifiable pattern was that respondents ranked their preparation as good (rather than excellent) in understanding legalities and integrating technology. This general trend could suggest that those two areas could represent relative weaknesses for completers. Conversely, knowing the importance of professional development, managing learning environments, and openly accepting suggestions or constructive feedback may be relative strengths. The 2017 teacher survey resulted in 24 respondents providing feedback about their preparation at the EPP. Of the 24 teachers included, 15 ranked their overall preparation at excellent and nine (9) ranked it as good. Qualitative feedback on open-ended items here focuses on the EPPs responsiveness to students’ needs. The 2018 teacher survey garnered only three (3) responses, with two (2) teachers ranking their preparation as good and one (1) ranking it as excellent. The small number of responses here provide serious limitations to finding patterns in the 2018 results counter-productive. The 2019 teacher survey resulted in 29 respondents providing feedback about their preparation at the EPP. Of the 29 teachers included, 22 ranked their overall preparation at excellent, two (2) ranked it as good and one (1) as fair. However, patterns across the surveys reveal that completers appreciate the EPP’s ability to respond to individual needs of candidates, two of which might be stronger preparation in terms of understanding legalities and integrating technology based on the 2016 results. At the same time, completers identified knowing the importance of professional development and being open to suggestions as relative strengths, concepts which appear to be corroborated by the principal survey results. Differences in perceptions between principals and teachers on completers’ capacity for managing learning environments might be explained by qualitative commentary from one principal who suggests that classroom management is one of the toughest concepts to teach. Regardless, state-wide teacher survey results indicate that completers are satisfied with their preparation at IU East (component 4.4).

  1. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones (Component 4.3 | A.4.1)

EPP Employer Satisfaction Survey

In 2017, the EPP drafted and began implementing an employer satisfaction survey (component 4.3). Because local administrators and cooperating teachers had expressed frustration over the length of surveys or evaluations used in the past, the employer satisfaction survey was intentionally kept shorter than its counterpart, the completer satisfaction survey, in hopes of increasing response rates while still addressing the same concepts/constructs. To date, the EPP has received 97 responses to the employer satisfaction survey, and the data is overwhelmingly positive with each of the ranking items produced a mean score of 3.00. Within the responses gathered to date, completers’ ability to communicate effectively with parents and classroom management appear to be relative weaknesses, scoring 3.20 and 3.33 respectively. Meanwhile completers’ ability to create positive relationships and supportive learning environments earned the highest score at 3.71. Completers’ conducting themselves in ways which evidence high personal standards followed at 3.61.

Qualitative feedback from this survey demonstrates two key themes. The first theme is one of appreciation for the EPP responsiveness to the needs of area schools and satisfaction with its completers. Classroom management and/or behavior management is something which employers express as a concern not only which they hold but which they perceive completers as having as well.

IU East School of Education Employer Satisfaction Survey Responses
2020 2019 2018 2017
Number of Responses

49

53

32

10

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers with classroom management skills.

3.27

3.47

3.24

3.20

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers with lesson planning skills.

3.37

3.55

3.48

3.40

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who use a variety of instructional strategies.

3.37

3.57

3.42

3.40

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers to utilize and integrate technology in instruction.

3.33

3.50

3.24

3.10

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who are knowledgeable about the use of assessment data in instruction.

3.18

3.44

3.27

3.40

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers to communicate with parents/guardians.

3.12

3.21

3.21

3.10

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who contribute to the work of their department/team/grade level.

3.35

3.58

3.55

3.50

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who create positive relationships with their students and a classroom climate conducive to learning.

3.41

3.80

3.61

3.60

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who conduct themselves in ways which evidence high personal standards.

3.43

3.70

3.48

3.50

I believe the SOE effectively prepares teachers who function effectively in a variety of group roles.

3.24

3.59

3.50

3.50

  1. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)

EPP Completer Satisfaction Survey

In 2017, the EPP also developed a completer satisfaction survey modeled after the criteria in the RISE teacher evaluation system (component 4.4).  To date, the EPP has received 25 responses to the survey with the majority (18 or 72%) coming from secondary education completers.  Here again, the data is overwhelmingly positive with each of the ranking items producing means scores above a 3.00.  Within the responses gathered to date, completers identified their ability to address behaviors as a relative weakness (3.04).  Arranging the physical space of the classroom to maximize learning, differentiating instruction, integrating technology, and tracking student data and analyzing progress all followed at 3.16.  Meanwhile, completers ranked their ability to create classroom cultures of respect and collaboration highest at 3.68.  Engaging students in academic content (3.60), demonstrating and communicating content knowledge to students (3.56), and creating objective-driven lesson plans and assessments (3.56) also appear as relative strengths.

In addition to Likert scale items, the completer satisfaction survey includes six open-ended questions requesting feedback regarding:

  • the EPP’s areas of strength
  • the EPP’s areas in need of improvement
  • future directions for preparing teachers
  • the value of the conceptual framework in daily teaching responsibilities
  • the value of the conceptual framework in preparing teachers to handle the dispositional aspects of teaching
  • the ways in which completers have felt supported by the EPP since completing the program

Patterns in responses to the first three qualitative items indicate that completers view faculty expertise, availability, and support throughout the program as a strength.  In addition, responses highlight preparation for working with diverse learners’ needs, using data from assessments to drive instruction, and designing standards-based curriculum as other areas of strength.  Conversely, some completers expressed specific concerns about class structures, assignments, or faculty interactions which they perceived to be unfair as areas for improvement.  Additional instruction in utilizing technology in the classroom and behavior or classroom management were also themes in response to the items focused on areas in need of improvement and future directions for the EPP.  Interestingly, completers also highlight a number of concerns they hold over developing a better understanding of the field and culture of education overall.  These responses range from the realities of teaching and self-care to the political climate surrounding education to the economic realities of teacher salaries.

In response to the two items focused on the role the conceptual framework has played in completers’ practice as first year teachers, most completers expressed specific ways in which the themes continue to shape their work.  In particular, completers emphasized the value of reflection and, in some instances, how this habit has been noticed by their building administration.

Feedback on the ways in which completers have felt supported by the EPP since completing the program lack the specificity which EPP faculty were hoping for when designing this item.  Yet, the feedback here is overall positive with completers saying that they feel they are able to rely on EPP faculty for assistance as they launch their new careers as teachers.

 

IU East School of Education Completer Satisfaction Survey Responses
2019 2018
Number 12 13
Utilize assessment data to plan 3.17 3.31
Set ambitious and measurable achievement goals 3.42 3.31
Develop standards-based unit plans and assessments 3.17 3.38
Create objective-driven lesson plans and assessments 3.33 3.77
Track student data and analyze progress 3.17 3.15
Develop student understanding and mastery of lesson objectives 3.17 3.54
Demonstrate and clearly communicate content knowledge to students 3.25 3.85
Engage students in academic content 3.50 3.69
Integrate technology in instruction 3.17 3.15
Check for understanding 3.33 3.69
Differentiate instruction 2.83 3.46
Provide accommodations for students with special needs 3.17 3.31
Develop higher level of understanding through rigorous instruction and work 3.08 3.69
Maximize instructional time 3.25 3.62
Create classroom culture of respect and collaboration 3.58 3.77
Arrange the physical environment of the classroom to maximize student success 3.00 3.31
Address behavior/discipline 2.92 3.15
Set high expectations for academic success 3.18 3.46
Contribute to school culture 3.42 3.46
Collaborate with peers 3.33 3.54
Seek professional skills and knowledge 3.42 3.62
Advocate for student success 3.33 3.69
Engage families in student learning 3.17 3.23
SECONDARY ONLY 8 10
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to my content area. 3.00 3.40
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies to support literacy development as it pertains to my content area 3.00 3.50
ELEMENTARY ONLY 4 3
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to reading and language arts. 3.00 3.67
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to writing. 3.00 3.00
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to math. 3.00 3.00
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to science. 2.75 2.33
I was effectively prepared to utilize instructional strategies specific to social studies. 3.00 2.33
  1. Graduation Rates
Academic Year Number of Education Students Number of Completers Percentage of Completion Number Retained Percentage Retained Total Attrition
2013-14 62 27 44% 30 48% 5
2014-15 84 29 35% 55 65% 0
2015-16 103 28 27% 70 68% 5
2016-17 103 43 42% 59 57% 1
2017-18 113 50 44% 59 52% 4

This table refers to the number of students who have been admitted into the Teacher Education Program (TEP) which typically happens during sophomore year for elementary candidates and at the end of their junior year for secondary candidates. The time it takes for candidates to advance through the program from entry into the TEP until graduation varies slightly from student to student. The most important number is the Total Attrition which records what percentage of students were admitted to the TEP but did not complete the program. In 2013-14 that number was 8% which is the highest rate for these five years. The lowest rate was 0% for 2014-15. In 2016-17, the percentage was less than 1%. In 2015-16, the rate was less than 5%. In 2017-18, the percentage was 3.5%.

  1. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced levels)

In order for a candidate to complete any program supported by the unit they must meet all licensing requirements outlined by the Indiana Department of Education. As a result, 100% of the unit's completers have the ability to meet licensing requirements. The following chart outlines the unit completer numbers from the 2019 Title II report.

2018-19 Title II Completers
Undergraduates 42
Alternative Routes 8
Initial Licensure Total 50
  1. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)

Employment Rate for Job Seekers after Graduation

  • 100% in 2013-2014
  • 100% in 2014-2015
  • 100% in 2015-2016
  • 97% in 2016-2017
  • 100% in 2017-18
  • 100% in 2018-19
  1. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced levels)

One of the difficulties that arises when trying to discuss loan default rates has to do with the imprecision with the way our campus collects this information. It is impossible to tell who is a graduate and who did not complete the program. The data below is for students who were coded as Education students who are now in default. Loan defaults run on a three-year cycle.

Based on 2016 draft numbers:
BS in Education was a cohort of 75 students with a draft default rate of 10.7% (8 students)
MS in Education was a cohort of 2 students with a draft default rate of 0% (0 students)

The numbers for 2015 look like this:
BS in Education was a cohort of 65 students with a default rate of 1.5%
MS in Education was a cohort of 9 students with a default rate of 0%
This is the most up-to-date data that is available due to the three-year cycle.

 

 

Request Information

Thank you so much for your interest in IU East! Please feel free to contact us with any questions at applynow@iue.edu or (765) 973-8208.
Available Contact Fields
Ethnicity (check all that apply)
Available Opportunity Fields
Available Campaign Member Fields
Available Campaign Fields
Required Opportunity Fields (can leave hidden but must stay on the form)
Required Campaign Member Fields (keep hidden but need to keep on form)
Required Campaign Fields (may keep hidden but need to keep on form)