Alabama Education Accountability

Teacher Preparation Report Card

May 26, 2005

Alabama Schools Are Focused On Success

Teachers must be properly prepared

Accountability Standards Alabama was the first state

to hold preparation programs accountable by issuing Report Cards.

Teacher preparation programs must “guarantee” graduates.

Institutions With Teacher Training Programs

  Public Private 

Alabama A & M University Birmingham-Southern College

Alabama State University Concordia CollegeAthens State University Faulkner UniversityAuburn University Huntingdon CollegeAuburn University Montgomery Judson CollegeJacksonville State University Miles CollegeTroy University Oakwood CollegeTroy University Dothan Samford UniversityTroy University Montgomery Spring Hill CollegeUniversity of Alabama Stillman CollegeUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham Talladega CollegeUniversity of Alabama in Huntsville Tuskegee UniversityUniversity of Montevallo University of MobileUniversity of North AlabamaUniversity of South Alabama University of West Alabama

Teacher Preparation Program Report

Assesses Program Entrance requirements Subject matter Field/Clinical

Experience Supervision Faculty Institution’s resource

commitment

Teacher Preparation Measures Performance

Using Professional Education Personnel Evaluation

(PEPE)

Using Surveys New Graduates Principals Superintendents

Alabama Prospective Teacher Testing Program

Basic Skills Assessments Praxis II (Beginning in 2006)

PEPE Already at Work

Each institution gets detailed information on each new teacher

This is the fifth year of report cards for teacher preparation programs

PEPE began in 1988. Its mission is to assure excellence in education in Alabama's public schools. The primary purpose of the program is to assist educators through the process of performance evaluation and professional growth to deliver quality education services, thus increasing student achievement.

The PEPE Scale

Four – Demonstrates Excellence Indicates the teacher does an outstanding job.

Three – Area of Strength Indicates teacher consistently meets expectations.

Two – Needs Improvement Teacher sometimes meets expectations but

improvement is needed. One – Unsatisfactory

Teacher’s performance is not acceptable, immediate improvement is needed.

(New teachers are graded on seven categories for a total of 28 possible points)

Teacher Education Programs Meeting PEPE Standards

1. Early Childhood2. Elementary3. Career Technical Education 4. English / Language Arts5. Fine Arts6. Foreign Languages7. Health Education/Physical Education/ Drivers Ed.8. Mathematics9. Reading10. Sciences11. Social Sciences/Studies12. Special Education13. Educational Administration14. Library Media15. School Counseling, Psychology, Psychometry

Revised PEPE-Based Grading Formula

Eliminated the three-year rolling formula and computed the annual grade for each program for which graduates were “PEPE’d” during the previous year (2003-2004 for this report), using the following scale based on the percentage of graduates who earned a PEPE score of 18 or higher:

A= 95-100% B= 90-94.99% C= 85-89.99 D= 80-84.99 F= less than 80%

To determine the institution’s score, total the points for each program area (counting each program area equally, regardless of the number of graduates who were PEPE’d) and divide by the number of program areas to determine the institution’s average score for all program areas.

Revised PEPE-Based Grading Formula

Revised PEPE-Based Grading Formula

Apply the following scale to the institution’s average score for all program areas to determine the institution’s grade:

A= 4 points B= 3.00-3.99 points C= 2.00-2.99 points

D= 1.00-1.99 points F= 0-.99 points

Revised PEPE-Based Grading Formula

As recommended November 10, 2004, by the Advisory Panel on Teacher Education and Certification, discontinue the “Clear/Caution/Alert” designations and apply the following sanctions based on letter grades:

A.) For each program based on program grade:

Grade of A/B/C: No action is required.

Grade of D or F: The State Superintendent of Education will recommend that the State Board of Education (SBE) rescind approval of a program that receives a grade of D for two consecutive years, a grade of F for two consecutive years, or a combination of a D and an F for two consecutive years.

Revised the PEPE-Based Grading Formula

B.) For each institution, based on the institution’s average score for all programs that result in the institution’s grade:

Grade of A or B: No action required.

Grade of C: Institution must develop and implement a plan for moving all programs to a grade of B or A within two years. All candidates must be notified. The State Superintendent of Education will recommend that the SBE rescind approval of an institution’s programs if the institution does not receive at least a grade of B within two years.

Grade of D or F: Institution must develop and implement a plan to achieve a grade of B or A within two years. All candidates must be notified. Also, the State Superintendent of Education will recommend that the SBE rescind approval of an institution’s programs if the institution receives a grade of D for two consecutive years, a grade of F for two consecutive years, or a combination of an F and D for two years.

Institution Summary Results

College NameProgra

m Count

A B C D F GPAInstitution

Grade

Alabama A & M University 12 11 0 0 0 1 3.67 B

Alabama State University 13 10 1 0 0 2 3.31 B

Athens State University 9 9 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Auburn University 13 11 1 0 0 1 3.62 B

Auburn University Montgomery 11 10 0 1 0 0 3.82 B

Birmingham Southern College 4 4 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Concordia College 2 2 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Faulkner University 4 4 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Huntingdon College 2 2 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Jacksonville State University 14 13 0 1 0 0 3.86 B

Judson College 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 A

Miles College 5 3 0 2 0 0 3.20 B

Oakwood College 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Samford University 6 5 0 0 0 1 3.33 B

Institution Summary Results

College NameProgram

Count A B C D F GPAInstitution Grade

Spring Hill College 2 2 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Stillman College 4 4 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

The University of Alabama 12 12 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

The University of Alabama-Birmingham 10 8 2 0 0 0 3.80 B

The University of Alabama-Huntsville 5 5 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Troy University 8 7 0 1 0 0 3.75 B

Troy University-Dothan 8 8 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Troy University-Montgomery 1 1 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Tuskegee University 2 1 0 0 1 0 2.50 C

University of Mobile 7 7 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

University of Montevallo 8 7 0 0 0 1 3.50 B

University of North Alabama 11 11 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

University of South Alabama 11 9 2 0 0 0 3.82 B

University of West Alabama 10 10 0 0 0 0 4.00 A

Program Summary ResultsTeacher Education Program

Total Program Count A B C D F

Elementary Education 26 21 3 1 1 0

English Language Arts 21 21 0 0 0 0

Social Sciences 18 15 1 0 0 2

Mathematics 17 17 0 0 0 0

Early Childhood Education 16 13 1 1 0 1

Special Education 15 14 1 0 0 0

Sciences 15 13 0 0 0 2

Health and Physical Education 15 13 0 2 0 0

Fine Arts 13 12 0 1 0 0

Counseling, Psychology, Psychometry

12 12 0 0 0 0

Education Administrator 11 11 0 0 0 0

Librarian 5 5 0 0 0 0

Foreign Language 5 5 0 0 0 0

Career Technical 5 4 0 0 0 1

Reading 2 2 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 196 178 6 5 1 6

Number Responding to Survey

574 Teachers 326 Principals 69 Superintendents

Survey Results

Overall, 96% of responding recent graduates expressed they were satisfied or very satisfied with their preparation for teaching.

Survey Results

New Teachers Surveyed While 96% were satisfied with their overall

preparation: 15% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with

their preparation to improve reading comprehension.

20% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with their preparation to recognize exceptional/special needs students.

24% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with their preparation to work with exceptional/special needs students

Survey Results

Local Principals Surveyed While 97% were satisfied or very satisfied with

the overall preparation of new teachers: 8% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with new

teachers’ preparation to improve reading comprehension.

7% were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with teachers use of technology to improve instruction.

Survey Results

Overall, 100% of responding superintendents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall preparation of new instructional support personnel.

Teacher Preparation Timeline

2004-2005 Teacher Prep Report Cards Dec. 2005

2005-2006 Teacher Prep Report Cards Dec. 2006

Praxis II Data Reported 2006-2007

Professional Development Ongoing

Specific Program Methods Course 2006

Teacher Prep Is Critical

Today’s elementary students will reach their most productive years in 2022-2042.