Print this page

Exhibit 1.7
Study of 2000-2001 Program Completers

Creation and Mailing of the 2000-2001 Follow-up Survey

   In the fall of 2001, the College of Education (COE) authorized the first (at least in some while) study of most professional educator program completers. Excluded where completers of a few programs that had done an independent but similar study. The objectives of the surveys were to determine: 1) how Program Completers evaluated their own preparation, 2) how their supervisors evaluated their preparation, and 3) how their supervisors evaluated their preparation relative to the preparation of Program Completers from other institutions.  In consultation with faculty members in Teacher Education, Post-Bachelor Certification, and Educational Leadership, questionnaires, specific to each area, were developed for both Program Completers and their immediate supervisors. In conjunction with the outcome objectives in each department, the questionnaires focused on how well the Program Completers were prepared in: 1) knowledge of subject matter; 2) knowledge of instructional strategies, including technology; 3) considering the school/family/community context and the prior experiences of students in making educational decisions; and 4) the appropriate use of assessment in measuring student learning outcomes. In addition, the surveys included questions about current professional practice: employment status, years of experience, grade level/subject areas, and other assignments (see Appendix A--Graduates). 

   During the Fall Semester of 2002, a database was developed for all individuals that became Program Completers in  FA 2000, WI 2001, SP 2001, or SU2001 semesters.  This database included demographic information and contact information for each Program Completer.  A cross check of contact information was done with various offices on campus (records, alumni, etc.) so that the most accurate contact information was utilized.

   For the purpose of this follow-up survey Program Completers were defined for each area of preparation: 

   Teacher Education (Initial Program Completers):  All individuals completing their initial Bachelors Degree and being recommended for an initial state certification.

   Post-Bachelor Completers (Advanced Program Completers):  All individuals that had either previously completed a Bachelors Degree with a teaching certification and were completing advanced course work for Professional Certification or those individuals that had completed a Bachelors Degree without certification and had returned to completed the necessary course work for a teaching certification.

   Educational Leadership (EDLD Program Completers): All individuals receiving a degree in Educational Leadership at either the Master’s, Specialists or Doctoral level.

   In addition to the Program Completers Questionnaire, a release was included with each questionnaire giving the College of Education permission to contact the Program Completer’s immediate supervisor.  The supervisors were sent a follow-up questionnaire asking them to evaluate the quality of the Program Completers preparation and to compare the preparation of the Program Completers with Program Completers from other Institutions. These questionnaires were developed using the same objectives as the Program Completers questionnaire (see Appendix A--Supervisors).

Respondent Information for Initial Program Completers

   The surveys were sent to the Initial Program Completers at the beginning of Winter Semester 2001.  This would place the Initial Program Completers mid-way through their first year of teaching.  Of the 774 Program Completers receiving surveys, 232 responded for a return rate of 30%.  The number and general curricula of those 232 respondents were 69 (30%) secondary education, 119 (51%) elementary education, and 40 (17%) special education. (In reporting the responses of the Special Education Completers, respondents were placed in either secondary or elementary based on their current employment status.)  Of the 232 respondents, 11 (5%) indicated they were not employed as a teacher, and 4 (2%) indicated that they were not teaching full-time but were substituting.  43 (19%) respondents indicated they were teaching on a full-time basis but failed to provide information on their specific assignment. Initial Program Completers were distributed across the degree programs as follows:

   Of the 232 Initial Program Completers responding to the survey, 117 (50%) gave the College of Education permission to contact their immediate supervisor.  Of the 117 supervisor surveys sent out, 85 (73%) responded.

Respondent Information for Advanced Program Completers

   Of the 299 Advanced Program Completers receiving surveys, 77 responded for a return rate of 26%.  Of those who indicated their current position (n=73), over half (53%, n=39) reported working in an elementary school, 19 (26%) indicated they were working in a middle/junior high school setting, while 15 (21%) indicated they were working in a high school setting.  All 77 respondents reported their specific job assignment. 71 (92%) reported being a classroom teacher, 5 (7%) school counselors, and 1 (.1%) reported holding a principal position.  The average Advanced Program Completer received their initial degree in 1993, and has 8.6 years of educational experience.

   Of the 77 respondents, 26 (34%) provide permission to contact their supervisor.  Of the 26 supervisors surveyed, 20 (77%) responded to the questionnaire.

Respondent Information for EDLD Program Completers

   Of the 52 EDLD Program Completers, receiving surveys 23 responded for a return rate of 44%.  The number and degrees granted for the 23 respondents were 5 (22%) doctoral, 3 (13%) Specialist, and 15 (65%) Master’s.  The 23 respondents identified their work settings as follows: 3 (13%) central office, 5 (22%) elementary school, 9 (39%) high school, 5 (22%) middle/junior high school, and 1 (.4%) higher education.  When asked to describe their specific job assignment, 9 (39%) identified their assignment as teaching, 6 (26%) listed assistant principal, 4 (17%) listed director of instruction, 2 (9%) indicated principal, 1 (.4%) listed central office administrator, and 1 (.4%) indicated assistant professor.  The average EDLD Program Completer received their initial degree in 1986.  On average, it had been 4.6 years since they had last completed a degree.  In terms of years of experience, on average, the EDLD respondents had 3.2 years of administrative experience and a total of 14.6 years of experience in education.

   Of the 23 respondents, 17 (74%) grant the COE permission to contact their supervisors.  Of the 17 supervisors contacted 14 (82%) responded.

Overview of Survey Results for Initial Program Completers

   Not all responses to the survey equal the total number of surveys received as some items were left blank or rated as not applicable.  It should be noted that while the overview of survey results presents responses listed as “low” no response average fell below 3.0; therefore even though a rating is listed as low this is in relative terms and does not reflect a less than satisfactory evaluation (see Table 1).

   Initial Program Completers rated their preparation to teach content in their discipline; their preparation to provide a safe, supportive environment for students; and their preparation to recognize and demonstrate professional dispositions, ethics, and behaviors appropriate to the profession most highly.  When the respondent data is separated into elementary and secondary respondents both groups shared high ratings for preparation in providing a safe, supportive environment for students; and professional disposition.  Elementary respondents rated their preparation to engage in ongoing opportunities for professional development highly, while secondary respondents rated their preparation to use curriculum standards when teaching highly. 

   In terms of lower rated items, Initial Program Completers rated their preparation to consider the broader purpose of schools when planning for instruction; their preparation to maintain an orderly, productive classroom environment; and their preparation to develop positive interactions with families and communities lowest.  Both elementary and secondary respondents shared in rating their preparation to develop positive interactions with families and communities low.  Secondary respondents rated maintaining an orderly, productive environment for students; and developing student cooperation and interpersonal skills low, while elementary respondents rated considering the broad purpose of schools when planning for instruction; and the use of curriculum standards when teaching lowest.

   The supervisor respondents rated the preparation of Initial Program Completers highly in the areas of providing a safe, supportive environment for students; engaging in ongoing opportunities for professional development; and recognizing and demonstrating professional dispositions, ethics, and behaviors appropriate to the profession, while rating making appropriate use of a variety of assessment strategies to measure student learning; considering the broader purposes of schools when planning instruction; and creating opportunities for students to value and respect diversity low.  In evaluating elementary and secondary Program Completers, supervisors evaluated both highly in the area of providing a safe, supportive environment for students.  Elementary Program Completers were evaluated highly by supervisors in maintaining an orderly, productive classroom environment; and recognizing and demonstrating professional dispositions.  Secondary supervisors rated Program Completers highly in teaching content in their discipline; and engaging in ongoing opportunities for professional development.  Supervisors rated making appropriate use of a variety of assessment strategies to measure student learning; creating learning experiences that focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity; and creating opportunities for students to value and respect diversity low.  Supervisors of both elementary and secondary Program Completers shared in their low rating of making use of a variety of assessment strategies; and considering the broad purpose of schools.  They rated elementary Program Completers low in making instructional decisions that take into account prior experiences and diverse students needs, while secondary Program Completers were rated low in applying learning and developmental theories when planning for instruction.

   In comparing Program Completers to graduates of other institutions, recognizing and demonstrating professional dispositions; modifying their teaching as a result of student understanding; and maintaining an orderly, productive classroom environment were highly rated by supervisors.  The lowest rated responses by supervisors, in comparing Program Completers to graduates of other institutions, were in the making of appropriate use of a variety of assessment strategies to measure student learning; considering the broader purpose of schools when planning for instruction; use of technology to enhance student learning and their own professional productivity. 

   When response were broken out  by teaching level, elementary Program Completers were highly rated in applying learning and development theories when planning for instruction; providing a safe, supportive environment for students;  relating to colleagues in a professional, productive manner; and modifying their teaching as a result of student understanding in comparison to graduates of other institutions.  Secondary Program Completers were rated highly in establishing appropriate, high level goals for students; considering the broader purpose of schools when planning for instruction; and recognizing and demonstrating professional dispositions when compared to other graduates.  Elementary Program Completers were rated low compared to other graduates in making appropriate use of a variety of assessment strategies to measure student learning; making instructional decisions that take into account prior experiences and diverse student needs; and using technology to enhance student learning and their own professional productivity.  Secondary Program Completers were rated low compared to other graduates by their supervisors in providing a safe, supportive environment for students; creating opportunities for students to value and respect diversity; and modifying their teaching as a result of student understanding.

   Overall, it should be noted that the Supervisor’s ratings of Initial Program Completers were higher on all items than the Program Completer’s own ratings of their preparation.  In addition, Program Completers and Supervisors shared in their assessment of  a high rating in providing a safe, supportive environment for students; and recognizing and demonstrating professional dispositions, ethics, and behaviors appropriate to the profession.  They also shared a general low rating of the Program Completers preparation in the consideration of the broader purpose of schools when planning for instruction.  Supervisors were consistent in their low rating of Program Completers in making appropriate use of a variety of assessment strategies to measure student learning when assessing the Program Completers preparation and in comparison to graduates of other institutions.

   In the open ended portion of the survey, Initial Program Completers generally identified the faculty and staff, general curriculum and the student teaching experience as strengths of the program.  In identifying weaknesses, Initial Program completers most often spoke of the need to increase the amount of instruction in classroom management; dealing with diverse and special needs populations; and to make the curriculum reflect the realities of teaching.  A large portion of the supervisors assessment of program strengths and weakness addressed the personal characteristics of the Program Completers. Overwhelmingly, of those strength attributed to their preparation, supervisors identified the variety of instructional strategies brought into the classroom as a positive product of their EMU experience.  Those weaknesses identified by supervisors were scattered across a variety of topics with only the need to improve the Program Completers ability to deal with diverse populations being consistently repeated.

Overview of Survey Results for Advanced Program Completers

   Not all responses to the survey equal the total number of surveys received as some items were left blank or rated as not applicable.  It should be noted that while the overview of survey results presents responses listed as “low” no response average fell below 3.0; therefore even though a rating is listed as low this is in relative terms and does not reflect a less than satisfactory evaluation (see Table 2).

   Advanced Program Completers rated their preparation to perform with a higher level of expertise in their degree area; preparation to engage in reflective inquiry regarding teaching practice; and their preparation to demonstrate dispositions appropriate to the profession highly, while rating their preparation in using research to inform problem-solving and decision-making in the classroom; providing optimal learning experiences for students from diverse cultural and experiential backgrounds; and using technology to inform and enhance practice as weak. 

   Supervisors rated Advanced Program Completer’s preparation highly in expanding their repertoire of instructional strategies; engaging in reflective inquiry regarding teaching practices; and advocating for children and young adults.  In contrast, they rated their preparation in using technology to inform and enhance practice; engaging in ongoing opportunities for professional development; and performing with a higher level of expertise in their degree area low.

   In comparing Advanced Program Completers to Post-Bachelor Completers from other institutions, supervisors gave their highest ratings of Advanced Program Completers in their preparation to engage in reflective inquiry regarding teaching practice; advocating for children and young adults; and engaging in ongoing opportunities for professional development.  The lowest rated areas were in the use of research to inform problem-solving and decision-making in the classroom; providing optimal learning experiences for students from diverse cultural and experiential backgrounds; and demonstrating dispositions appropriate to the profession.

   Both Program Completers and Supervisors rated the engagement in reflective inquiry regarding teaching practices high, while both rated low the preparation to use technology to inform and enhance practice.  In contrast, Program Completers rated their preparation to perform with a high level of expertise in their degree area highly, while supervisors rated this area low.  Program Completers rated the use of research to inform problem-solving and decision-making in the classroom; providing optimal learning experiences for students from diverse cultural and experiential backgrounds low and, in comparing Advanced Program Completers to Post-Bachelor Completers from other institutions, supervisors also rated these areas low.  Supervisors rated the preparation of Advanced Program Completers in engaging in ongoing opportunities for professional development low yet, when comparing Program Completers to other institutes this area was rated high by supervisors.  With the exception of the preparation to engage in ongoing opportunities for professional development, Supervisors rated Advanced Program Completers higher than the Program Completers rated their own preparation.

   In the open-ended identification of strengths, Program Completers identified the quality of the faculty, the curriculum and classes, and the flexibility of the program and course offerings as the program’s strengths.  The lack of focusing on the realities of the classroom, the advising process, and preparation in the use of technology were the focus of weaknesses identified. 

   As with the Initial Program Completers, many of the supervisor’s comments reflected an assessment of the individual characteristics of the Program Completer.  Of those that reflected upon the strengths of the program, the development of multiple instructional strategies and leadership skills were the most frequent responses.  The comments by supervisors regarding weaknesses did not show any consistent pattern and covered a wide variety of areas including the use of research, job realities, inclusion, and knowledge of state benchmarks.

Overview of Survey Results for EDLD Program Completers

   Not all responses to the survey equal the total number of surveys received as some items were left blank or rated as not applicable.  It should be noted that, while the overview of survey results presents responses listed as “low” no response average fell below 3.0; therefore even though a rating is listed as low this is in relative terms and does not reflect a less than satisfactory evaluation (see Table 3).

   EDLD Program Completers rated their preparation in professional and ethical leadership; organizational management; and interpersonal relationships highly in their preparation.  They rated professional development and human resources; student personnel services; and financial management and resource allocation low in the assessment of their preparation.  Supervisors rated the same areas of preparation highly.  In addition, they also rated professional development and human resources; and preparation in technology and information systems highly.  Garnering a low rating by supervisors were two areas also rated low by the Program Completers, preparation in student personnel services; and preparation in financial management and resource allocation.  Supervisors also gave a low rating to the preparation in community and media relations. 

   In comparing Program Completers at EMU to Program Completers at other institutions, supervisors gave high ratings to the EMU Completers in professional and ethical leadership; professional development and human resources; and interpersonal relationships.  Comparative ratings by supervisors were low in the areas of information management and evaluation; financial management and resource allocation; and educational law, public policy and political systems.

   Without exception, supervisors rated the preparation of EDLD Program Completers higher than the Program Completers rated their preparation.  Except for community and media relations; and educational law, public policy and political systems, supervisor’s comparative ratings of EDLD program completers were equal to or higher than the Program Completers rating of their own preparation.  Supervisors and Program Completers were consistent in their  ratings. Both groups rated professional and ethical leadership; organizational management; and interpersonal relationships high, while also rating student personnel services; and financial management and resource allocation low.  One contrasting rating occurred in the assessment of professional development and human resources, EDLD Program Completers rated this area low while supervisors rated this high.

   Within the open-ended assessment of program strengths and weakness, Program Completers overwhelming focused on three areas, the high quality of the faculty and staff; the program curriculum; and the flexibility and structure of the program.  Comments on weakness covered a broad spectrum of topics with only two, the law as it relates to special needs populations; and the presentation of job realities showing any significant consistency amongst respondents.  Supervisors identified supervision and evaluation of staff as a strength and yet, also identified it as a weakness of the program.  In addition, supervisors identified professional development as a strength of the program and the ability to cope with the political realities of leadership as a weakness.

Previous Page