Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) logo

UNC Greensboro is accredited under the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Standards at the Initial and Advanced levels through Spring 2029. The next site review will take place in Fall 2028.

Initial Preparation Programs

  • Birth-Kindergarten (UG, PBIL)
  • Deaf and Hard of Hearing (UG)
  • Elementary (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Elementary & SpEd (UG)
  • English (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • English for Speakers of Other Languages (MAT, NCT)
  • French (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Health and PE (UG, LO)
  • Latin (NCT)
  • Mathematics (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Middle Grades (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Science (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Social Studies (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Spanish (UG, MAT, NCT)
  • Special Education General Curriculum (UG, MAT, PAIL)

Advanced Preparation Programs

  • *Elementary Math (MEd, AO)
  • *Elementary Science (MEd, AO)
  • *English for Speakers of Other Languages (MEd, AO)
  • *French (MEd)
  • *Mathematics (MEd)
  • *Reading/Literacy (MEd, AO)
  • School Administration (MSA, PMC)
  • *Science (MEd)
  • *Social Studies (MEd)
  • *Spanish (MEd)
  • Special Education General Curriculum (MEd)
  • *Concentration within the MEd in Teacher Education

Key

  • UG- Undergraduate
  • MAT- Master in the Art of Teaching
  • NCT- NCTeach non degree licensure only
  • LO- Licensure only
  • PBIL- Post Baccalaureate Initial Licensure
  • PAIL- Postbaccalaureate Alternative Initial Licensure
  • MEd- Master of Education
  • MSA- Masters in School Administration
  • PMC- Post Masters Certificate
  • AO- Add on

Professional Education Data

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 1: Completer Effectiveness (Component R4.1).

The graph shows data collected on beginning teachers (3 years of service or less) in public schools in North Carolina. The bars show the percentages of P-12 students taught by beginning teachers who do not meet, meet, or exceed their expected growth in learning for that year.

Due to COVID-19, NC DPI did not conduct student testing in Spring 2020. Therefore there is no data available for 2019-20. The graph below shows the most recent data available to us as of April 2023.

Title: Plot of E V A A S percentages for UNCG graduate across three years.   For the academic year 2018-2019, approximately 75% of students met expected growth, while 15% did not meet expected growth, and 10% exceeded expected growth. For the academic year 2020-2021, the percentage of students who met expected growth increased to approximately 86%, while the percentage of students who did not meet expected growth decreased to 14%, and only 1% exceeded expected growth. Finally, for the academic year 2021-2022, approximately 70% of students met expected growth, while 22% did not meet expected growth, and 11% exceeded expected growth.

The graph below compares the most recent data (AY2021-22) for UNCG graduates to the state data. UNCG had a slightly higher percentage of completers who did not meet expected growth than the state, however UNCG also had a higher percentage of completers who exceeded expected growth than the state as a whole. Fewer UNCG completers met expected growth compared to the statewide population of new teachers. 

Title: Plot of 2021-2022 E V A A S percentages for UNCG graduates verses all beginning teachers in North Carolina.   Alt Text: The first column shows that approximately 22% of UNCG graduates did not meet expected growth, compared to 19.0% in North Carolina.   The second column shows that approximately 67% of UNCG graduates meet expected growth, compared to 71% in North Carolina.   The third column shows that approximately 11% of UNCG graduates exceed expected growth, compared to 10% in North Carolina.

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 1: Completer Effectiveness (Component R4.1).

The graphs show data collected on beginning teachers (3 years of service or less) in public schools in North Carolina. The bars show the percentage of UNCG alumni that are rated Proficient or higher on key performance areas compared to all beginning teachers in the state. The performance ratings are made by the principal. They key performance areas are aligned to state teaching standards:

  • Standard 1: Teachers Demonstrate Leadership
  • Standard 2: Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment for a Diverse Population of Students
  • Standard 3: Teachers Know the Content They Teach
  • Standard 4: Teachers Facilitate Learning for Their Students
  • Standard 5: Teachers Reflect on Their Practice

Due to COVID-19, NC DPI did not collect Spring 2020 performance assessments of teachers. Therefore, no data are available for 19-20. The graphs below show the most recent data available to us as of April 2023 (from AY 2021-2022).

Title: Plot of North Carolina educator evaluation system (N C E E S) graduate effectiveness data for UNCG graduates compared to graduates from other institutions in North Carolina for years 2018-2019, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022.  Alt-Text: The first column shows the average scores for each of the five standards for UNCG graduates in the academic year 2018-2019. All five standards are approximately equal at 95%, except for standard 4, "Teachers facilitate learning for their students," which is slightly lower at 93.9%.  The second column shows the average scores for North Carolina in the academic year 2018-2019. The first four standards (1-4) are approximately equal to the rates of the 2018-2019 UNCG graduates at 95%. However, standard 5, "Teachers reflect on their practice," has the lowest score for the 2018-2019 year for North Carolina, at approximately 74%.  The third column shows the average scores for each of the five standards for UNCG graduates in the academic year 2020-2021. All five standards are approximately equal at 90-98%. The first two standards (1 and 2) are around 96%, followed by the third and fourth standards (3 and 4) at approximately 94%. Standard 5, "Teachers reflect on their practice," has the lowest score, at approximately 92%.  The fourth column shows the average scores for each of the five standards for North Carolina in the academic year 2020-2021. All five standards are approximately equal to the 2020-2021 UNCG graduates rates, at 96%.  The fifth column shows the average scores for each of the five standards for UNCG graduates in the academic year 2021-2022. Standard 3, "Teachers know what they teach," has the highest score, at approximately 100%, showing progress from previous years. Standards 1, 4, and 5 are approximately equal at 95%, whereas standard 2, "Teachers establish a respectful environment for a diverse population of students," has the lowest score, at approximately 90%.  The sixth column shows the average scores for each of the five standards for North Carolina in the academic year 2021-2022. All five standards are approximately equal to the 2021-2022 UNCG graduates rates, at 98%.

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 2: Satisfaction of employers and stakeholder involvement (Components R4.2, R5.3, RA 4.1).

Representatives from NCDPI, the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC), and EPP faculty from both public and private institutions worked collaboratively to create The NC Employer Survey (NCES). First administered in 2017 and then annually, the NCES includes items that are aligned with the state’s professional teaching standards. The survey is completed by school principals (or assistant principals) for each of the first-year teachers employed at their school. The 2022 NC Employer survey contained 29 items concerning the effectiveness of UNCG graduate employees. Each item represents a different “teaching task.” Principals responded to the following question stem: “Relative to other first-year teachers, how effective was INSERT TEACHER NAME at the following teaching tasks” using the following response scale: Much less effective (1), Less effective (2), Comparable (3), More effective (4), Much more effective (5)

The data presented here is the most recent data available as of April 2023.

The results of the NC Employer Survey over three years indicate that more than 85% of employers consider UNCG initial licensure completers to be at least as effective as other beginning teachers prepared in NC on all standards. Standard 1 had the largest number of completers rated “less effective” or “much less effective” in all three years. Standard 5 also had a larger number of completers rated as “less effective” in the most recent data.

NC EMPLOYER SURVEY AVERAGE PERCENTAGES ACROSS NC PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS 2019-2020

NC StandardEPPNMuch Less Effective (1)Less Effective (2)Comparable (3)More Effective (4)Much More Effective (5)
Standard 1Other NC Prepared10631.07.143.932.016.0
Standard 1UNCG743.011.831.131.822.3
Standard 2Other NC Prepared10631.68.044.728.717.0
Standard 2UNCG744.48.335.327.524.5
Standard 3Other NC Prepared10631.05.446.829.917.0
Standard 3UNCG742.45.440.322.324.7
Standard 4Other NC Prepared10630.95.647.630.215.7
Standard 4UNCG743.37.539.325.424.5
Standard 5Other NC Prepared10631.34.747.528.917.6
Standard 5UNCG744.18.835.131.121.0

NC EMPLOYER SURVEY AVERAGE PERCENTAGES ACROSS NC PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS 2020-2021

NC StandardEPPNMuch Less Effective (1)Less Effective (2)Comparable (3)More Effective (4)Much More Effective (5)
Standard 1Other NC Prepared17170.74.950.230.913.3
Standard 1UNCG1631.96.350.331.110.3
Standard 2Other NC Prepared17170.64.750.130.813.8
Standard 2UNCG1631.94.150.932.110.9
Standard 3Other NC Prepared17170.43.652.329.913.7
Standard 3UNCG1631.23.951.932.410.4
Standard 4Other NC Prepared17170.33.951.430.813.5
Standard 4UNCG1631.14.253.232.39.3
Standard 5Other NC Prepared17170.63.752.230.612.9
Standard 5UNCG1632.13.154.631.38.9

NC EMPLOYER SURVEY AVERAGE PERCENTAGES ACROSS NC PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS 2021-2022

NC StandardEPPNMuch Less Effective (1)Less Effective (2)Comparable (3)More Effective (4)Much More Effective (5)
Standard 1Other NC Prepared12791.67.851.026.912.8
Standard 1UNCG863.89.652.025.09.6
Standard 2Other NC Prepared12791.87.850.526.613.4
Standard 2UNCG865.89.750.323.510.6
Standard 3Other NC Prepared17170.85.354.327.112.6
Standard 3UNCG864.74.155.225.610.5
Standard 4Other NC Prepared17171.15.852.927.612.6
Standard 4UNCG864.56.754.725.68.5
Standard 5Other NC Prepared17171.46.154.025.313.2
Standard 5UNCG862.39.943.633.710.5

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 2: Satisfaction of employers and stakeholder involvement (Components R4.2, R5.3, RA 4.1).

Our advanced level plans are proceeding with their phase-in plans as presented in our CAEP site visit in fall 2021. Click on the headings below to see progress reports/data for each of the 4 Advanced programs (MSA/PMC in School Leadership, MEd in Teacher Education, MEd in Special Education, and MEd in Birth-Kindergarten Interdisciplinary Studies).

A pilot employer survey was conducted for the MSA/PMC in School Administration in Spring 2022. The data can be found here.

Analysis of Employer Pilot Survey Instrument

1. The survey instrument was of a reasonable length (about 10 minutes to complete).

2. The survey contained 34 items that aligned with both individual items from the NC Standards for School Executives and individual items from the CAEP Standards. The individual items may need to be examined to identify possibilities for streamlining and/or to avoid any double- and triple-barreled questions.

3. The survey instrument’s 34 questions could be grouped into small sections in order to help ease the participants toward survey completion and avoid inducing any participant fatigue.

Analysis of Employer Pilot Survey Results

1. Response rate: the survey was distributed to 15 program completers and completed by 3 of them, which constituted a 20% response rate.

2. Assessing individual responses: Each item received a mean response of 4.67.

Proposed Changes to the Employer Survey and Process Based on the Pilot

1. Invite a larger number of employers to participate with the knowledge that a substantial number of invitees will fail to complete the survey. Also, provide an exact deadline for survey completion and frequent reminders to complete the survey.

2. In order to help guide the participants toward survey completion and avoid any participant fatigue, organize the questions into 7 smaller groupings of questions that relate directly to the 7 main standards of the NC Standards of School Executives.

3. Ensure that participants clearly understand how the ratings are rank ordered (e.g., an announcement at the outset that 1 is lowest rating and 5 is highest rating).

1.0 Background

In alignment with the North Carolina Graduate Teaching standards, the UNCG School of Education office of Educational Assessment conducted a pilot survey in February 2023 to assess how participants in the TEHE MED program demonstrate competencies in various aspects of each of the five standards. The survey was administered to 21 respondents who serve as principals and employers where the participants currently work. However, five out of 21 employer email addresses bounced, leaving the pilot survey with a sample of 16 total respondents. Of these, 11 respondents successfully completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 68.75%. This report summarizes the pilot survey instrument, analyzes the major findings of the pilot study, and provides recommendations for future surveys or studies using the same methods.

2.0 TEHE MED Participants’ Employers Pilot Survey

2.1 Analysis of the Pilot Survey Instrument

The survey instrument comprised 36 items aimed at assessing participants’ competencies in the five NC Graduate Teaching standards as evaluated by their employers in their day-to-day teaching activities. The instrument consisted of Likert scale items as well as open-ended questions. The items were straightforward, providing respondents with sufficient information regarding the aspects of the standards that assessed how well participants were prepared in each of these areas.

2.2 Analysis of the Pilot Survey Findings

Overview

Generally, the overall ratings suggest that all participants in the TEHE MED program were well-prepared in each of the five NC Graduate Teaching Standards, as none of them were rated as “somewhat unprepared” or “not at all prepared.” The analysis shows that the majority of participants were rated as extremely well prepared, and a few participants were rated as well prepared in all responses.

Analysis of Major Findings The findings suggest that the participants of the UNCG TEHE MED program are very competent in various aspects of teaching; however, there exists a disparity in their level of competence across different aspects of each standard (See Appendix 1). For example, in the first standard that assesses participants’ display of leadership characteristics, over 90% of participants are exceedingly competent in their involvement in professional learning communities, followed by their demonstration of effective ongoing communication and collaboration among colleagues by 81.82%. Conversely, the participants who were extremely well prepared in facilitating mentoring for novice teachers and in establishing priorities and promoting educational initiatives that affect students learning positively were only 72.73% (See Figure 1 below). We observe a similar trend in the second standard, which evaluates the attributes of a respectful educational environment in participants (refer to Figure 2 in Appendix 1).

Chart, bar chart  Title: Plot of the percentages of preparedness among UNCG graduates in various aspects of the NC Graduate Teaching standard 1: Teacher Leadership:   The first aspect assesses how participants demonstrate effective ongoing communication, collaboration, and team-building among colleagues, approximately 82% of participants are considered to be extremely well prepared, while the remaining 18% are classified as well prepared.   The second aspect assesses how participants facilitate mentoring and coaching with novice teachers, and the third aspect assesses how participants set goals and establish priorities while promoting educational initiatives that positively affect students. In both of these, approximately 73% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, with the remaining 27% classified as being equally well prepared. The fourth aspect assesses how participants participate in professional learning communities. Approximately 91% of participants are regarded as being extremely well prepared, while only around 9% are classified as well prepared in this particular standard.
Figure 1: TEHE MED Program participants’ preparedness in different aspects of Teacher Leadership

It is noted also that one item in the third Graduate Teaching Standard showed significant variation compared to all the other items. Specifically, respondents rated participants’ integration of 21st century content into educational practice as nearly split in half (5 out of 11 respondents rated participants as extremely well prepared, while 6 out of 11 rated them as not extremely well prepared), indicating that almost half of the participants (i.e., 45.45%) may not be as well prepared to model the integration of 21st century content and skills into educational practice. On a positive note, over 80% of respondents noted that participants demonstrated in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and 72.73% rated participants as extremely well prepared in developing relevant and rigorous curriculum (See Figure 3 below).

Chart Title: Plot of the percentages of preparedness among UNCG graduates in various aspects of NC Graduate Teaching Standard 3: Content and Curriculum Expertise:  The first bar shows how participants demonstrate in depth knowledge of curriculum instruction and assessment.  82% of participants are considered to be extremely well prepared, while the remaining 18% are classified as well prepared.  The second bar shows how participants model the integration of 21st century content and skills into educational practice.  55% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, while the remaining 45% are classified as well prepared.   The third bar shows how participants develop relevant rigorous curriculum. 73% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, with the remaining 27% classified as well prepared.
Figure 3: TEHE MED Program participants’ preparedness in different aspects of Content and Curriculum expertise

A trend similar to this is noticed in the fourth standard, which evaluates participants’ preparedness in various aspects of student learning (See Figure 4 below). Just 63.6% of the participants are exceedingly competent in seeking out and utilizing existing research to inform school practices, and in designing action research to improve student learning and school policies and practices. This implies that almost 36.4% of the participants may not be as strong in these domains. However, in the same fourth standard, over 90% of the participants exhibit a remarkable level of competence in modeling technology integration to support student learning. Additionally, 72.7% of the participants possess the ability to critically analyze student and school performance data to ascertain needs and  plan rigorous, coherent, and substantial instruction.

Chart Title: Plot of the percentages of preparedness among UNCG graduates in various aspects of NC Graduate Teaching Standard 4: Student Learning:  The first bar shows how participants seek out and use existing research to inform school practices, and the second bar shows how participants design action research to investigate and improve student learning and school policies and practices. In both bars, 64% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, while the remaining 36% are classified as well prepared.  The third bar shows how participants model technology integration that supports student learning. 91% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, while the remaining 9% are classified as well prepared.  The fourth bar shows how participants critically analyze student and school performance data to determine needs and plan instruction that is rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within a theoretical and philosophical base. 73% of participants are considered extremely well prepared, with the remaining 27% classified as well prepared.
Figure 4: TEHE MED Program participants’ preparedness in different aspects of Student Learning

3.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The pilot survey was conducted to a small number of people, and it received a considerable response rate. Findings from a pilot survey has revealed the effectiveness of the TEHE MED program in preparing its graduate teaching participants. Furthermore, the survey has identified some areas that require improvement or attention when designing the curriculum and lessons for the program participants. While the ratings were consistent across all items, indicating that the majority of program participants are highly skilled in the five teaching standards, the small sample size makes it challenging to determine the reliability of the pilot survey results.  Therefore, considering the encouraging response rate, it is recommended that the office of Educational Assessment employ other qualitative methods, e.g., employer in depth interviews and/or focus group discussions to gather an in-depth understanding of the participants’ preparedness in the 5 standards. This will improve the validity and reliability of the pilot survey findings and, as a result, improve the program and its future undertakings.

The MEd in Special Education planned to conduct a pilot survey of employers in Spring 2023, however the number of completers over the past three years was so low that a survey was unlikely to produce sufficient data to be useful. Therefore the program faculty has planned a focus group for employers that will be conducted on May 9, 2023. 

Introduction

The Birth through Kindergarten Interdisciplinary Studies in Education and Development (BKISED) Masters program includes a concentration that leads to the Birth through Kindergarten Advanced or M License. An annual survey is conducted of graduates who completed the program approximately three years prior. A survey of graduates’ employers is being piloted and will document their professional position and progress, as well as their employers’ satisfaction with their preparation to provide high quality early education services. This report summarizes data collected in Spring 2023, in partial fulfillment for CAEP requirements and also to support program improvements.

Methodology

The data collection instrument was a survey designed to collect data on graduates’ current positions and the perception of their preparedness for various standards-related skills and knowledge. Implemented through Qualtrics, the survey asked questions about the organization the graduates work for, the position that they currently hold, and the children/families that they work with. The survey also asked for respondents to rate graduates’ preparedness on a variety of items developed based on the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates and informed by expectations articulated in the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Educations and the Division for Exceptional Children (DEC) Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators. Respondents rated the graduates’ preparedness on a three-point scale (“well prepared”, “somewhat prepared” and “not prepared”), with an option to indicate that the specified skill/knowledge was not required for their position. Graduates were asked to rate their perception of their own level of preparedness and employers were asked to rate their evaluation of the graduate’s preparedness. Ratings on the scale were recoded so that “well prepared” was scored as a 3.

Graduates from 2019 and 2020 were surveyed. Each graduate from this respective period was contacted via email to request participation in the survey and to ask for their direct supervisor’s contact information so that the program could request that the employer complete a survey. A total of seven graduates were contacted and all seven agreed to participate. They all provided their supervisor’s contact information, and all seven supervisors invited to participate completed a survey. All but one graduate (85.7%) reported being employed with the same organization prior to graduating from the program. The one graduate who joined their current organization after graduation had been employed with the entity for approximately one year and nine months.

Employers who completed the survey were the direct supervisors of the graduates. They included two principals, two program directors, two educational services coordinators, and one educational diagnostician clinical supervisor.

Results

Graduate Work Settings and Positions

All of the graduates (N = 7) reported being employed in the early childhood education field. They work for a variety of programs including NC Pre-K (n = 4), public schools (n = 3), Head Start/Early Head Start program (n = 3), and Early Intervention (n = 2). Note that an individual respondent could select multiple programs because they might, for instance, work in an NC Pre-K classroom within a public school setting or in a Head Start setting.

All graduates but one reported that they work directly with families and children. The number of children/families that the graduates work with ranged from 10 to 400, with a mean of 79 children/families. However, five of the six who work directly with children and families reported that they work with 22 or fewer children/families. One graduate works with infants and toddlers, four with preschool/pre-Kindergarten age children, and one with kindergarten and elementary school-age children.

The graduates’ position titles included: Lead Teacher (n = 3; two at the preschool/Pre-K level and one kindergarten), Intervention Specialist—Preschool, Early Childhood Education Supervisor, Educational Diagnostician, and School Readiness Coach. These position titles indicate that the graduates are fulfilling a variety of roles and different types of responsibilities within the field of early childhood education and early childhood special education. All graduates described their current position as mid-level or higher within their program, and two described their current position as an advanced-level position. Employers were also asked to rate the level of the graduate’s position, and all indicated that the graduate’s position was mid-level or higher but only one indicated that the graduate’s current position was an advanced level position.

Three graduates indicated that they have been promoted within their program since graduation and four indicated that they have not been promoted but there has not been an opportunity to be promoted since they graduated. Employer responses confirmed the graduates’ self-reported promotions, indicating that three of the graduates have been promoted since completing their degree and four have not had an opportunity to be promoted.

Graduate Perceptions of Preparation

Graduates and employers were asked to rate their perception of the preparedness of the graduates on a variety of items related to effective teaching on a scale of one to three, with a rating of three indicating “well prepared”. Table 1 shows that graduates and employers felt that the graduates were well prepared to demonstrate leadership and promote respectful educational environments. Graduates reported being somewhat less prepared to facilitate mentoring or coaching with colleagues and to participate in professional organizations. Graduates indicated that they felt well prepared to meet the expectations presented in the other items. Employers indicated that the graduate that they supervise is well prepared for each of the aspects of leadership and respectful educational environments that were measured on the survey.

TABLE 1: GRADUATES’ AND EMPLOYERS’ PERCEPTION OF PREPAREDNESS FOR LEADERSHIP AND RESPECTFUL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

GraduatesEmployers
ItemMeanRangeStandard DeviationMeanRangeStandard Deviation
Demonstrate effective, ongoing communication with colleagues.3.0303.030
Facilitate mentoring and coaching with teachers/colleagues.2.82-30.353.030
Demonstrate leadership to promote improved outcomes for young children and their families.3.0303.030
Engage in collaborative learning opportunities to improve your practice.3.0303.030
Participate in local, regional, and/or national professional organizations/activities.2.72-30.45N/A*N/A*N/A*
Create and/or support collaborative partnerships with colleagues.3.0303.030
Demonstrate caring and respectful interactions with individuals within the educational community.3.0303.030
Collaborate as a partner with families to support respectful, culturally responsive, and reciprocal relationships.3.0303.030
Implement learning experiences that are responsive to individual learner differences3.0303.030
*Employers were not asked to rate this item.

Regarding their perception of how well prepared graduates were to plan and implement an effective early childhood curriculum and to use results from screenings and assessments, the graduates indicated that they felt well prepared. All graduates rated each of the items included in Table 2 as “well prepared”. Employer ratings of graduates’ preparedness in curriculum and assessment was slightly lower, with a mean of 2.9 for the items related to screening and assessments.

TABLE 2: GRADUATES’ AND EMPLOYERS’ PERCEPTION OF PREPAREDNESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT

ItemMeanRangeStandard DeviationMeanRangeStandard Deviation
Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of how to plan, implement and evaluate curriculum and learning experiences appropriate for young children.3.0303.030
Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of screening tools and processes to identify children with potential disabilities.3.0302.92-30.35
Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of formal and informal assessments for instructional planning and progress monitoring.3.0302.92-30.35

Table 3 shows that graduates indicated that they felt well prepared to facilitate student learning and reflective practice. One item, the use of up-to-date research to inform practice, was rated slightly lower by the graduates than the other items, all of which were rated as “well prepared” by all graduates. Employers rated graduates slightly less prepared across many of these items. Mean ratings of preparedness were 2.7 to 2.9 on items related to graduates’ ability to collect and analyze data to guide their practice, promote the use of technology in their work with children and with colleagues, and promote the development of meaningful professional goals. Employers rated graduates’ ability to use up-to-date research and to promote reflective practices slightly higher than the other items, consistently reporting that the graduate was “well prepared” on these items.

TABLE 3: GRADUATES’ AND EMPLOYERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS TO FACILITATE STUDENT LEARNING AND REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

ItemMeanRangeStandard DeviationMeanRangeStandard Deviation
Use up-to-date research to inform your practice.2.92-30.353.030
Systematically collect and analyze multiple sources of data from children, families, and/or their program to improve your practice and child/family/program outcomes.3.0302.72-30.45
Promote the use of technology to support children’s learning.3.0302.92-30.35
Promote the use of technology to communicate and collaborate with families and other professionals.3.0302.72-30.45
Promote an educational culture that values reflective practice to extend children’s learning and for program improvement.3.0303.030
Promote the development of meaningful professional goals to improve professional practices.3.0302.72-30.45

Conclusion and Next Steps

Overall, graduates from the BKISED Leadership & Advanced Teaching License program report that they are doing well three years after graduation. Results suggest that graduates have been successful in retaining their positions and in receiving promotions when available. Both graduates and their employers rated the graduates as well prepared on items that are related to North Carolina’s Standards for Graduate Teaching Candidates.

There are, however, some limitations to this effort to document graduates’ strengths and areas for improvement, as well as employers’ satisfaction with the graduates whom they supervise. First, the small sample size limits the program’s ability to draw conclusions from the results. Generally, these graduates and their employers seem to be satisfied with the graduates’ performance, but with a sample of only seven the results do not support strong conclusions regarding the preparation of graduates. Although there was 100% participation—all eligible graduates and their employers participated—the sample is small. Over the course of several years, the program will hopefully be able to collect data from a large enough contingent of graduates to support meaningful conclusions from the data. With a typical annual graduating cohort of one to three students, it will take time to collect data from a large sample of graduates.

A second limitation is the lack of variation in responses to the items. The majority of the items were rated as “well prepared” by respondents. This lack of variation presents additional challenges in drawing conclusions regarding areas where the program can seek to improve preparation of current candidates. For future surveys, the program should consider using a five-point scale to elicit greater variance among the responses. Finally, although graduates were asked to report the length of time they have been working with their current organization and to identify their direct supervisor, the survey did not collect data regarding how long the employer respondent has been the graduate’s supervisor nor how regularly the employer has the opportunity to observe the graduate in their professional practice. Collecting data on these two indicators—how long the graduate has worked for the employer and how regularly the employer observes and/or interacts with the graduate—would provide an indication of how well the employer might know the graduates’ work from first-hand experience. This might be an important factor in the employers’ ability to gage how satisfied they are with the graduate, and could be an important additional data point to collect in the future.

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 3: Candidate competency at completion (Component R3.3), specifically for initial level programs.

UNCG initial level programs use multiple measures to determine if teacher candidates are ready for the profession. See the following links and data tables for a summary of these data.

Licensure Exams

Initial teaching candidates must successfully pass one or more standardized exams to qualify for a North Carolina teaching license. The NC Department of Public Instruction maintains a data dashboard that allows you to examine performance on licensure exams. Go to the dashboard, select “License Exams” from the array of options. Select an exam from the tabs at the top of the page (the default aggregates all exams). Next, select “UNCG” for our institution. You can select all years of data, the most recent year, or the last three years. UNCG pass rates are comparable to the state overall. Both UNCG and the statewide pass rates have trended down over the past three years.

For data on individual tests, the Federal Title II reporting process collects pass rates on these exams into one data report. See our most recent Title II report for Traditional Programs (starting on page 32) and Alternative Programs (starting on page 32). Note that pass rates are only given for licensure categories where there are at least ten graduates for privacy reasons. The key measure for each licensure exam is the Pass Rate column – the right-most column in the data tables.

edTPA

The teaching performance of UNCG candidates is assessed summatively using the edTPA. The edTPA is a nationally normed proprietary performance assessment of planning, instruction and assessment, aligned to the InTASC standards. The edTPA consists of three tasks. Each task is assessed using 4 or 5 rubrics. Most programs at UNCG complete 15-rubric assessments. The only exception is World Languages French and Spanish), which is a 13-rubric assessment. Each rubric is scored on a scale of 1-5 and the rubric scores are added together for a total score on the assessment. The state of North Carolina considers a total score of 38 to be a passing score. The data presented represent all program completers and were collected during their student teaching semester (either fall or spring).

edTPA

YearNumber of candidates completing initial programNumber of candidates taking assessmentAverage ScoreState Passing Score
2019-2018217443.238
2020-2120020042.738
2021-2227026842.438

Candidates’ average scores on the edTPA exceed the state required score across three cycles of data. The edTPA data show that UNCG candidates are assessed using a nationally normed performance-based assessment and that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of P-12 students.

Teacher Candidate Evaluation Rubric

The Teacher Candidate Evaluation Rubric (TCE) is a proprietary assessment instrument designed by McREL for the state of North Carolina. It is used to assess candidate performance on the NC Professional Teaching Standards and is completed by university-based and field-based clinical educators.

  • Standard 1 of the TCE measures how well teacher candidates demonstrate leadership.
  • Standard 2 of the TCE measures how well teacher candidates establish a respectful environment for a diverse population of students.
  • Standard 3 measures how well teacher candidates know the content they teach.
  • Standard 4 measures how well teacher candidates facilitate learning for their students.
  • Standard 5 measures how well teacher candidates reflect on their practice.

Each element of the TCE rubric is scored on a scale of 1-4. A score of 3 is identified as proficient. Each standard has multiple elements. The chart below presents the average scores for each standard.

YearNumber of candidatesAverage of TCE-S1Average of TCE-S2Average of TCE-S3Average of TCE-S4Average of TCE-S5
2019-201823.293.343.233.283.26
2020-212003.263.313.233.283.24
2021-222703.253.313.253.273.23

Across three cycles of data, UNCG candidates meet or exceed the proficient level on all 5 NC Professional Teaching Standards as measured by the Teacher Candidate Evaluation rubric.

Candidate Dispositions Assessment Process

The Candidate Dispositions Assessment Process 2.0 (CDAP 2.0) was developed at UNCG by a collaboration of assessment experts and faculty members, resulting in an assessment instrument intended to provide actionable information to faculty and to help teacher candidates understand how to successfully demonstrate dispositions that meet professional standards. The UNCG Dispositions Rubric is intended to measure dispositional strengths and weaknesses of teacher candidates seeking initial teaching licensure. Dispositions are important to a teacher’s success; therefore, scores on the UNCG Dispositions Rubric are intended to be a critical component of decisions regarding a teacher candidate’s recommendation for licensure. The Dispositions rubric is scored from 0-3, with a score of 2 as proficient. Candidates must be rated as proficient (score of 2) on all of the Dispositions in order to be recommended for licensure.

YearNumber of candidatesAverage of EthicalAverage of ResponsibleAverage of ReflectiveAverage of ReceptiveAverage of CollaborativeAverage of CommittedAverage of RespectfulAverage of EquitableAverage of Advocacy
2019-201822.492.592.442.512.412.532.422.482.43
2020-212002.452.502.402.442.382.462.412.382.39
2021-222702.332.412.332.362.282.362.332.312.28

Across three cycles of data, candidates met or exceeded the proficient level for all dispositions at the final time point.

This set of assessments aligns to CAEP Annual Report Measure 3: Candidate competency at completion (Component RA3.4)

Our advanced level plans are proceeding with their phase-in plans as presented in our CAEP site visit in fall 2021. Status on these measures is indicated for each program below.

MSA/PMC in School Leadership

Two cycles of data have been collected so far (see below). The third cycle of data is being collected in Spring 2023. There are 7 standards evaluated on the NC School Executive Evaluation Rubric for Preservice Candidates. Candidates are rated from 1-4, with a score of 3 being Proficient. Across two cycles of data, candidates performed at or above the proficient level on all standards.

2020-212021-22
StandardNAverage ScoreNAverage Score
Standard 1. Strategic Leadership 83.0363.14
Standard 2: Instructional Leadership 83.0363.2
Standard 3: Cultural Leadership83.0363.29
Standard 4: Human Resource Leadership 83.0363.26
Standard 5: Managerial Leadership 83.0363.14
Standard 6: External Development Leadership 83.0363.17
Standard 7: Micro-political Leadership 83.0363.46

MEd in Teacher Education

Two cycles of data have been collected so far (see below). The third cycle of data is being collected in Spring 2023.

On both the Teacher Leadership Project Rubric and the Teacher Research Project Rubric, candidates receive a score of Exceeds Expectations (3), Meets Expectations (2), or Does Not Meet Expectations (1) on each element of the rubric. In Spring 2021, 22 candidates completed the two projects. In Spring 2022, 11 candidates completed. Across two cycles of data, candidates met or exceeded the expectations on all elements of both rubrics.

MED IN TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER RESEARCH PROJECT DATA

2020-212021-22
IndicatorStandards AssessedNAverage ScoreNAverage Score
Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S3222.41112.55
Seek out and use existing research to inform school practices.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.50112.73
Design: Candidate clearly articulates research questions that are open-ended, focused AND situated or contextualized by literature/previous researchNC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.45112.36
Design: Candidate clearly describes research contexts and study participants (e.g., number of participants, demographics, current level of performance, grade level, prior experiences ) in a way that is relevant to the research question and situates study contexts within literature/previous researchNC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.50112.45
Design: Candidate describes how data were collected (e.g., number of interviews, interview questions, protocols) in a clear and detailed way AND connects data collection method to research question AND includes multiple data sources (e.g., data triangulation)NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.82112.91
Design: Candidate describes how each source of data was analyzed in a clear and detailed way AND includes rationale for using particular methods of analysis to answer the research question(s).NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.18112.27
Design: Candidate comprehensively and accurately identifies and discusses potential limitations of the study (e.g., accurately identifies and discusses  potential limitations of study findings)NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods research methodologies222.68112.55
Analysis: Candidate comprehensively  and accurately articulates the results of data analysis in response to the research question(s)NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Applications of data literacy222.36112.55
Analysis: Candidate supports claims about student and school performance with evidence from the study. The candidate synthesizes and contextualizes results from the study with prior research/literature.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Applications of data literacy222.50112.64
Determine needs and plan instruction that is rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within  a theoretical and philosophical base.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S4 CAEP A.1.1 Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments222.55112.55

MED IN TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER LEADERSHIP PROJECT DATA

2020-212021-22
IndicatorStandards AssessedNAverage ScoreNAverage Score
Sets goals and establishes priorities while promoting educational initiatives that positively affect student learning:  Purpose and goals for teacher leadership projectNC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S1 CAEP A.1.1 Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others CAEP A.1.1 Use of research222.82112.82
Sets goals and establishes priorities while promoting educational initiatives that positively affect student learning:  literature about research and/or practices for student learning  NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S1 CAEP A.1.1 Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others CAEP A.1.1 Use of research222.77112.73
Establish a positive and productive environment for a diverse population of students, their families, and the community.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S2 CAEP A.1.1 Application of professional dispositions222.45112.18
Demonstrate effective ongoing communication, collaboration, and team-building among colleagues.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S1 CAEP A.1.1 Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others CAEP A.1.1 Application of professional dispositions222.68112.64
Promote educational initiatives by planning and implementing a project that positively affects student learning: Candidate presents a coherent plan that addresses the need(s) identified in a cohesive manner.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S1 CAEP A.1.1 Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments222.68112.55
Promote educational initiatives by planning and implementing a project that positively affects student learning: Candidate describes how the plan was implemented.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S1 CAEP A.1.1 Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments222.73112.64
Contribute to systematic, critical analysis of learning: Evidence of feedback collected from stakeholdersNC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S5 CAEP A.1.1 Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments222.09112.55
Contribute to systematic, critical analysis of learning:  Reflects on the evidence collected from stakeholdersNC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S5 CAEP A.1.1 Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments222.45112.36
Model personal and professional reflection to extend student learning and school improvement.NC Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates S5 CAEP A.1.1 Application of professional dispositions222.09112.27

MEd in Birth-Kindergarten Interdisciplinary Studies

Within the BK program, the first three cycles of data for the Dispositions instrument will be available for analysis and use by the program faculty in Fall 2024, after collecting the third cycle in Spring 2024. Data from the newly developed Data Literacy instrument and the revised Portfolio 4 instrument will be available in 2025.

MEd in Special Education General Curriculum

For the MEd in Special Education, data are collected from student artifacts (i.e., major assignments) in SES 647 (Teacher Leadership Project) and SES 652 (Action Research Project) beginning with Summer 2022. Only two candidates completed SES 647 and only one completed SES 652 in Summer 2022, therefore the data cannot be reported here. Aggregated data will be reported when enough candidates have completed.

The NC Department of Public Instruction maintains a data dashboard that allows you to examine the percentage of our graduates who are employed in North Carolina public schools within three years of completion of their program. Go to the dashboard, select “NC Employment and Retention” from the array, then select “All” from the left hand side of the page for the entire state as a whole or “UNCG” for our institution. The graphs will present several years of employment data, showing the percentage of program completers who are employed in a NC public school within one, two, and three years of graduation.

Note that above the graphs, you can select licensure area categories, then scroll down and select a more specific license to see that data. In some cases, our numbers of graduates are small and therefore the data must be interpreted with caution. 

The MSA in School Administration and Post Masters Certificate in School Administration (advanced level programs) are represented in the licensure area category of “Administrative”. 

The graphs generally indicate that for overall categories, UNCG graduates are employed at similar rates to completers from programs across the state. There is some variation for individual license areas, for example at the secondary level, UNCG graduates are employed at slightly higher rates than graduates of other programs across the state, while special education candidates are employed at a slightly lower rate. 

IHE Annual Reports