CAEP Annual Reporting

CAEP Annual Reporting for Initial Programs

York College has three academic schools. The EPP is located within the School of Health Sciences and Professional Programs, and consists of the Department of Teacher Education and portions of the Department of Health and Physical Education, which houses the K-12 Health Education and Physical Education programs.

The EPP is a CAEP’s 2020 recipient of the Frank Murray Leadership Recognition for Continuous Improvement and is fully accredited. The EPP continues to recognize the importance of ongoing data collection and analysis and uses multiple measures to assess its programs to be informed about the quality of program completers’ preparation. During the most recent CAEP accreditation process, the following are the EPP programs that were reviewed by CAEP:

Biology/ Education 7-12 (BA)
Chemistry/ Education 7-12 (BS)
Earth Science/Education 7-12 (BS)
English Education/Middle School Extension (BA)
Health Education
History Education/Middle School Extension (BA)
Interdisciplinary Studies / Teacher Education 1-6 (BA)
Mathematics Education 7-12 (BS)
Physical Education
Spanish Childhood Bilingual Education (BA)

The data displayed on this page address the CAEP Accountability Measures and were collected during the 2021-2022 academic year.

Measure 1 (Initial): Completers Effectiveness

During the 2020-2021 academic year, York faculty measured Complete Effectiveness through our Alumni Case Study protocol modified for online instruction and observation. During the 2021-2022 academic year, New York City Department of Education public schools made a very demanding transition back to being fully in person after the months of on-line instruction required by the pandemic. During this time, schools significantly restricted access to their buildings for non-essential personnel. Many schools experienced temporary closures as substantial numbers of students and/or teachers tested positive for COVID.

While York faculty attempted to partner with our graduates who were newly hired in 2021-2022 to complete the Alumni Case Studies, we were unable to negotiate the challenging logistics. Additionally, our conversations with these first-year teachers revealed the profound stress that they were experiencing as their schools tried to combat students’ learning loss from the pandemic. Most schools were requiring teachers to conduct supplemental instruction to help students catch up.

While our alumni expressed a desire to be helpful, they could not fathom adding one more responsibility to their lives. As a result of all of this, we decided to put a pause on the Alumni Case Study process for this one year and do not have measures for this one cohort of completers. We have returned to implementing Case Studies

Measure 2 (Initial): Satisfaction of Employers

As a result of the conditions described above, none of our program completers returned our Alumni Survey in the 2021-2022 academic year. Since we use information on that survey to contact employers, we were unable to collect employer satisfaction data that year.

For the 2022-2023 academic year, we have transitioned to using an office assistant to collect responses verbally, which is yielding much higher response rates than any previous year. We will be able to distribute the Employer Survey in spring 2023.

Measure 3 (Initial): Candidate Competency at Completion

Assessment C- Dispositions

Data Report: Spring 2022 & Fall 2021

The data below reflects the score candidates received during student teaching with regards to dispositions. These ratings were submitted from clinical supervisors. The data shows that candidates received “effective” and “highly effective” score mostly, which is pleasing to the EPP. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers

Component	Spring 2022 Developing	Spring 2022 Effective	Spring 2022 Highly Effective	Fall 2021 Effective	Fall 2021 Highly Effective
1. Addressing Individual Student Needs	2 (8%)	12 (46%)	12 (46%)	20 (100%)
2. Cultural and Linguistic Awareness		18 (69%)	8 (31%)	20 (100%)
3. Openness to Technology	2 (8%)	10 (38%)	14 (54%)	20 (100%)
4. Support All Students	1 (4%)	17 (65%)	8 (31%)	19 (95%)	1 (5%)
5.* Student-centered Classroom Management	2 (8%)	17 (68%)	6 (25%)	19 (95%)	1 (5%)
6. Collaboration	1 (4%)	12 (46%)	13(50%)	19 (95%)	1 (5%)
7. Professional Interactions	3 (12%)	10 (38%)	13(50%)	20 (100%)
8. Problem Solving	1 (4%)	13 (50%)	12 (46%)	20 (100%)
9. Professional Ethics	1 (4%)	12 (46%)	13(50%)	19 (95%)	1 (5%)
10. Timeliness	4 (15%)	14 (54%)	8 (31%)	20 (100%)
11. Responsible for student learning	2 (8%)	15 (58%)	9 (35%)	20 (100%)
12. Lifelong Learner		12 (46%)	14 (54%)	20 (100%)	1 (5%)
13. Openness Feedback		11 (42%)	15 (58%)	20 (100%)	1 (5%)
14. Reflective Practice	1 (4%)	12 (46%)	13(50%)	20 (100%)

*Data was not provided for one student

Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation

Part A: Lesson Plan Evaluation

Data Report: Spring 2022 & Fall 2021

Part A assesses the candidate’s ability to compose a lesson plan. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores, which is pleasing to the EPP. It is noted that there were a few candidates who earned developing and one candidate earned ineffective. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.

Component	Spring 2022 Developing	Spring 2022 Effective	Spring 2022 Highly Effective	Fall 2021 Developing	Fall 2021 Effective	Fall 2021 Highly Effective
1. The plan is clearly articulated.	1 (4%)	18 (69%)	7 (27%)	1 (7%)	9 (64%)	4 (29%)
2. The plan reflects pedagogical content knowledge.	1 (4%)	18 (69%)	7 (27%)	1 (7%)	12 (86%)	1 (7%)
3. The plan reflects content knowledge.	1 (4%)	20 (77%)	5 (19%)	1 (7%)	10 (71%)	3 (21%)
4. The plan follows an organized progression of activities - a logical flow.	3 (11%)	14 (54%)	9 (35%)		12 (86%)	2 (14%)
5. The plan includes a variety of instructional strategies.	2 (8%)	16 (61%)	8(31%)	1 (7%)	10 (71%)	3 (21%)
6. The plan includes the deliberate grouping of students when appropriate.		22 (85%)	4 (15%)		9 (64%)	2 (14%)
7. The plan includes differentiation for students based on an understanding of the different needs of the students in the classroom.	3 (11%)	18 (69%)	5 (19%)		9 (64%)	2 (14%)
8. The plan includes academic language.	1 (4%)	20 (77%)	5 (19%)	1 (7%)	10 (71%)	3 (21%)
9.The plan includes the implementation of digital technology.	1 (4%)	17 (68%)	7 (27%)	1 (7%)	11 (79%)	1 (7%)
10.The plan cites research/theory.	1 (4%)	15 (60%)	9 (36%)	1 (7%)	10 (71%)	3 (21%)

Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation

Part B: Observation Evaluation

Data Report: Spring 2022 & Fall 2021

Part B assesses the candidate's ability to execute a lesson plan and support students, as observed by the clinical supervisor/cooperating teacher. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data below shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores which is pleasing to the EPP. It is noted that there were a few candidates who earned developing and one candidate earned ineffective. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.

Component	Spring 2021 Developing	Spring 2021 Effective	Spring 2021 Highly Effective	Fall 2020 Developing	Fall 2020 Effective	Fall 2020 Highly Effective
1. Establishes a positive learning environment. Respect and rapport are evident.	1(5%)	10(53%)	8(42%)	1(5%)	7(37%)	11(58%)
2. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness to students’ diverse needs.		14(74%)	5(26%)	1(5%)	12(63%)	6(32%)
3. Demonstrates pedagogical content knowledge.	1(5%)	15(79%)	3(16%)	2(11%)	9(47%)	8(42%)
4. Demonstrates content knowledge.	1(5%)	15(79%)	3(16%)	2(11%)	11(58%)	6(31%)
5. Effectively models and/or uses demonstration or representation (chart/picture/poster) to support learning a strategy or skill.	2(11%)	12(63%)	5(26%)	2(11%)	11(58%)	6(31%)
6. Presents learning tasks in a manner that engages students.	1(5%)	13(68%)	5(26%)	2(11%)	9(47%)	8(42%)
7. Engages students in learning tasks to support the mastery of academic language.	2(11%)	17(89%)		2(11%)	10(52%)	7(37%)
8. Uses a variety of questions to elicit and build on student responses to deepen content understanding.	4(21%)	15(79%)		4(21%)	8(42%)	7(37%)
9. Uses questioning to monitor student learning.	2(11%)	17(89%)		1(5%)	11(58%)	7(37%)
10. Appropriately responds to formative assessment data with instructional decisions and feedback to students. *	2(11%)	16(84%)	1(5%)	3(17%)	8(44%)	7(39%)
11. Connects new content to prior learning as well as cultural and personal assets.		13(68%)	6(32%)	2(11%)	12(63%)	5(26%)
12. Engages students in challenging work and conveys his/her high expectations for the students.	2(11%)	14(73%)	3(16%)	1(5%)	11(58%)	7(37%)
13.* Demonstrates an ability to manage time (closure).	1(6%)	11(61%)	6(33%)	4(21%)	7(37%)	8(42%)
14. Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom rules, routines, and materials.		12(63%)	7(37%)	1(5%)	9(47%)	9(47%)
15.* Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom space.	1(6%)	7(39%)	10(55%)		11(58%)	8(42%)
16. Demonstrates an ability to use technology effectively. **	1(5%)	10(53%)	8(42%)	1(5%)	7(39%)	10(56%)
17. Makes a positive impact on student learning.		8(42%)	11(58%)		9(47%)	10(53%)

*n=18 (SP 22); ** n=18 (SP22)

Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation

Part C: Reflection Evaluation

Data Report: Spring 2022 & Fall 2021

Part C assesses the candidate’s ability to reflect on his/her instruction and respond to feedback from his/her clinical supervisor. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data below shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores, which is pleasing to the EPP. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.

Component	Spring 2022 Developing	Spring 2022 Effective	Spring 2022 Highly Effective	Fall 2021 Effective	Fall 2021 Highly Effective
1. The reflection covers the assigned topic(s).		10(71%)	4(29%)	11(85%)	2(15%)
2. The reflection includes an analysis (using assigned questions for guidance) of how classroom events connect with theory/research.		11(79%)	3(21%)	12(92%)	1(8%)
3.The reflection includes an analysis of the candidate’s impact on student learning.	1(7%)	9(64%)	4(29%)	11(85%)	2(15%)
4. The reflection includes the consideration of multiple perspectives, such as those from the students, the cooperating teacher, clinical supervisor, parents, and school administration.		14(100%)		12(92%)	1(8%)
5. The reflection includes a clear plan for improvement, in which specific goals have been set for the candidate’s instruction/assessment practices.	2(14%)	9(64%)	3(21%)	11(85%)	2(15%)

Measure 4 (Initial): Ability of completers to be hired

The data below reflect the number of program completers for three years along with certification and hired information. Certification information is obtained from TEACH and hiring information is obtained from NYDOE. The data shows for 2021-2022, 78% of program completers are certified and ready to be hired and 51% of those certified are hired.

Year	Certified	Hired In Area of Certification	Hire Info Unavailable
2021-2022 (n=45)	35 (78%) *	18 (51%)	17 (49%)
2020-2021 (n=34)	32 (94%) **	21 (66%)	11 (34%)
2019-2020 (n=26)	18 (69%)	12 (67%)	6 (33%)

*13 program completers received COVID emergency certification

**8 program completers received COVID emergency certification