Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)

Nationally Recognized Programs in the School of Education

The following programs are nationally recognized and meet standards of the profession:

Status of National Recognition Reports by Program, 2013

Program Name

Program Level

Agency or Association Reviewing Program

Status of Review

Art

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/Master's

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Administration and Supervision

Master's/Post-Master's

ELCC

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Business

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/Master's

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Computer Science

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/Master's

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Early Childhood

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

NAEYC

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Elementary Education

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

ACEI 

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Foreign Languages

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

ACTFL

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Gifted and Talented Spec.

Master's/Post-Master's

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Mathematics Instructional Leader

Master's/Post-Master's

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Library Media Specialist

Master's/Post-Master's

ALA

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Music

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Reading Specialist

Master's/Post-Master's

IRA

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Secondary English

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

NCTE

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Secondary Mathematics

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

NCTM

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Secondary Science

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

NSTA

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Secondary Social Studies

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

NCSS

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Special Education

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate/MAT

CEC

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

TESOL

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate

TESOL

Nationally Recognized till 02/01/2021

Theatre

Undergraduate/Post-Baccalaureate

MSDE

Maryland Approved till 2/01/2021

Degrees, Programs and Areas of Certification in the School of Education

The following table identifies the plethora of degrees, programs and areas of certification offered at Notre Dame of Maryland University:

Degrees Subject/Content/Areas of Specialization (Grade Certification) Notes

Bachelor’s Degree (BA)***

  • Art or Music, (PreK-12)
  • Early Childhood Education with Liberal Arts Degree (P-3)
  • Early Childhood and Special Education  (P-3)
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education (PreK-6)
  • Elementary Education (1-6)
  • Elementary and Special Education (1-6)
  • Business, Computer Science, English, World Languages [French, Spanish], Math, Science [Biology, Chemistry, Physics], History, Social Studies,& Theatre, (7-12)**

***Includes a liberal arts major or a major in a discipline, in addition to the Education certificate

**Praxis II can be taken for certification in grades 4-9
Bachelor’s/  Master of Arts Degrees (BA/MAT)***
  • Art or Music, (PreK-12)
  • Early Childhood, Special Education andTESOL  (P-3)
  • Elementary Education (1-6)
  • Elementary and Special Education (1-6)
  • Business, Computer Science, English, World or Classical Foreign Languages, Math, Science [Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physical Science, Physics], History, Social Studies, or Theatre, (each one with or without Special Education), (7-12)**

***Includes a liberal arts major or a major in a discipline, in addition to the Education certificate

**Praxis II can be taken for certification in grades 4-9
Master of Arts in Teaching Degree (MAT)

10-Month/Fast Track , 15-Month/Full-time or 2-Year/Part-Time Programs:

  • Art or Music, (PreK-12)
  • Early Childhood Education (PreK-3)
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education (PreK-6)
  • Early Childhood and Special Education (PreK-3)
  • Elementary Education (1-6)
  • Elementary and Special Education (1-6)
  • Business, Computer Science, English, World or Classical Foreign Languages [Chinese, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish], Math, Science [Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physical Science, Physics], History, Social Studies, or Theatre , (each one with or without Special Education), (7-12)**
  • TESOL
**Praxis II can be taken for certification in grades 4-9

Master’s Degree (MA)

  • Administration & Supervision for Changing Populations
  • Catholic School Leader/Teacher
  • Gifted and Talented
  • Leadership in Special Education
  • Leadership in Teaching: Administration and Supervision
  • Leadership in Teaching: Library Media Specialist
  • Leadership in Teaching: Mathematics
  • Leadership in Teaching: Reading Specialist
  • Leadership in Teaching: Spanish
  • Leadership in Teaching: Special Education
  • Leadership in Teaching: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math)
  • Leadership in Teaching: TESOL
 

Certificate of Advanced Studies (CASE)

  • Administration and Supervision
  • Gifted and Talented
  • Library Media Specialist
  • Special Education
  • Spanish
  • STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math)
  • TESOL
 
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
  • Leadership for Changing Populations
 
Certificates Subject/Content/Areas of Specialization (Grade Certification) Notes

Renewal of Certification (non degree, graduate level courses)

  • Six (6) semester hours of acceptable credit* which are offered in a variety of online, face-to-face and hybrid delivery modes
*Acceptable Credits are: (1) Earned or taught at NDMU; (2) Related to a school assignment; and (3) Earned within 5 years immediately preceding the date on which your certificate was issued
Initial Certification via Advanced Teaching Certification (ACT), (non degree, graduate level courses)
  • Art or Music, (PreK-12)
  • Early Childhood Education (PreK-3) with Liberal Arts Major
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education (PreK-6)
  • Special Education Childhood and Early Childhood (PreK-3)
  • Elementary Education (1-6)
  • Elementary and Special Education (1-6)
  • Business, Computer Science, English, World or Classical Foreign Languages [Chinese, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish], Math, Science [Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physical Science, Physics], History, Social Studies, or Theatre , (each one with or without Special Education), (7-12)**
**Praxis II can be taken for certification in grades 4-9
Post Masters (non degree, graduate level courses)
  • Administration and Supervision
  • Gifted and Talented
  • Library Media Specialist
  • Math Instructional Leader
  • Reading Specialist
  • STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) (PreK-8)
  • TESOL, (PreK-12)
 
Mission of the School of Education

The mission of the School of Education is to provide rigorous Teacher Education Programs which seek, above all, to instill in our students a desire to be proactive as future leaders and decision-makers within the education enterprise, and to value teaching as the vocation that enables the choices of others and supports the human impulse to grow. These programs are designed to present the vocation of teaching as the vital link between our private and public worlds, and our personal fulfillment, professional development, and social responsibility. 

Our aim is to nurture and help focus the program participants’ consciousness of vocational commitment and purpose as they develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of competent professionals. The approach taken throughout the program is characteristically holistic, shaping and defining our roles as educators within the larger contexts and diverse environments and dimensions of education: public and private; elementary and secondary; urban, suburban, and rural; local, national, and global. T

The program is holistic also in the sense that the artificial boundaries between content and processes, curriculum and instruction, and knowledge and values are erased by faculty who teach through modeling an array of instructional approaches, and, as reflective practitioners, raise the important moral and ethical issues embedded in teaching decisions.

As individuals who care, listen to, understand and respect one another, faculty and students together create a community of shared inquiry as well as a community of purpose through the following commonly-shared values that we believe are inherent qualities of sound teaching and meaningful learning (and which are referred to as our RSVP Conceptual Framework): 

Research

 

Research-based and experience-based teaching within a liberal arts tradition enables the educator to act with the integrity that comes from knowing what one is doing and why one is doing it.

Self-Reflection

 

 

Reflection in action and critical self-knowledge enable the educator to articulate a point of view that is guided by informed reason rather than rhetoric, a personally appropriated value position, and attentive self-assessment.

Vocation

 

Teaching is a vocation or “calling” in which the meaning of professionalism gives equal weight to both competence and virtue.

Practice

 

Teachers who exhibit visionary leadership and commitment to life long learning, apply exemplary educational practices, which encourage and enable others to act with imagination, risk-taking, intention, and invention.

Five specific outcomes, which are derived from this RSVP framework and are embedded in each of the School of Education teacher preparation programs, are designed to prepare teachers with the requisite skills needed to promote student achievement accordingly:

Research-based and experience-based teaching within a liberal arts tradition enables the educator to act with the integrity that comes from knowing what one is doing and why one is doing it.

(1) Demonstrate a general knowledge base in the liberal arts and in specific content appropriate for teaching. 

(2) Demonstrate effective application of principles derived from the ongoing relationship between research-informed theory and practice.  

Reflection in action and critical self-knowledge enable the educator to articulate a point of view that is guided by informed reason rather than rhetoric, a personally appropriated value position, and attentive self-assessment.

(3) Exemplify the qualities of a reflective practitioner through analysis and assessment of teaching practices and behaviors, redesigning instruction to meet individual needs.  

Teaching is a vocation or “calling” in which the meaning of professionalism gives equal weight to both competence and virtue. 

(4) Act and make decisions guided by a philosophy of teaching and leanings rooted in a moral system that values the development and diversity of each individual.  

Teachers who exhibit visionary leadership and commitment to life-long learning apply exemplary educational practices, which encourage and enable others to act with imagination, risk-taking, intention, and invention. 

(5) Create a safe and interactive environment in which students are both empowered and free to take risks, to think analytically, critically, and creatively, to make informed choices and to act responsibly.

Under this RSVP Conceptual Framework, the School of Education faculty, supervisors and mentor teachers assess teacher candidates throughout their educator preparation program using eight specific dispositions which are deemed essential for educators to possess. These newly adopted (as of fall 2018) eight dispositions are aligned to both the National InTASC education standards and to the Charlotte Danielson framework used by most Maryland public school systems to assess/evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. These dispositions are used/assessed by the teacher candidates and/or faculty et al upon admission to the School of Education, during specific courses of study in their e-Portfolios (e.g., EDU 357 and 509), during specific courses of study in Joule surveys (e.g., EDU 300, EDU 556), and ultimately during their two internship placement evaluations. They are as follows:

Collaboration This student established rapport with others; maintained positive and productive interactions with others; valued teamwork; demonstrated a commitment to achieving team goals; assumed appropriate roles in the collaborative process; sought to develop and maintain professional classroom relationships.
INTASC: #1, 6, 10; Danielson: 1b, 1c, 1e, 3c,1f, 3d, 4c, 4d, 4f
Responsibility/Initiative This student demonstrated self-direction in his/her own learning; was highly motivated, reliable, and conscientious; showed maturity of judgment; created opportunities to engage in activities or conversations that extend beyond typical expectations.
INTASC: #1 Danielson:1b, 1c, 1e, 3c
Perseverance This student was able to problem solve through challenges; think critically; remain optimistic when confronting obstacles, and exhibit self-control.
INTASC: #10; Danielson: 4c, 4d, 4f
Cultural Responsiveness This student valued diversity and different perspectives; demonstrated an ethic of care; was aware of and sensitive to cultural differences; was social-justice minded; equitable.
INTASC: #2, 3, 4, 6; Danielson: 1b, 2a, 3c, 1a, 1e, 3c, 1f, 3d
Flexibility/Adaptability This student was receptive to new ideas; flexible in response to change; adjusted and revised work based on new ideas and feedback.
INTASC: #5, 7, 8; Danielson: 3a, 3c, 3f, 1b, 1e, 3b, 3c
Reflectivity/Responsiveness to Feedback This student was open to constructive feedback; solicited input from others; adapted behavior in response to feedback and suggestions; strived to achieve competence and integrity; reflected on and evaluated his/her strengths and areas of improvement; advocated for professional growth; showed a commitment to lifelong learning.
INTASC: #9, 10; Danielson: 4a, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f
Communication This student’s oral and written communications are clear, engaging, and professional; used vocabulary and tone appropriately; was sensitive to social cues and reacted to social cues appropriately; exhibited strong interpersonal skills; consistently maintained professional demeanor even in stressful situations.
INTASC: #10; Danielson: 4c, 4d, 4f
Professionalism This student was present, punctual, and prepared with all necessary materials; met deadlines; dressed and maintained an appearance that aligned with what is expected based on the social setting and the role.
INTASC: #10; Danielson: 4a, 4e, 4f
School of Education Teacher Candidate Outcomes and Measures Used to Evaluate Outcomes

The aforementioned RSVP outcomes (designed in a cross-curricular format and approved jointly by the School of Education and the School of Arts, Sciences, and Business) are rigorously assessed throughout the Teacher candidate’s academic and clinical experience. Using a Chalk and Wire platform for e-Portfolios and rubrics tailored for each task, faculty members assess the quality of student works (artifacts) which are closely aligned to individual course assignments and which mirror InTASC standards and the Danielson Framework. These artifacts are routinely reviewed, analyzed and refined by faculty in order to strengthen their utility for the prospective teacher and to ensure national recognition by our national accrediting body. Moreover, two major components that cross all programs, undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, and master’s programs (with and without certification components) are “reflection” on the Conceptual Framework (RSVP) and “candidate dispositions.” For example, the candidate’s RSVP dispositions for initial certification are obtained at three different levels of the candidate’s program. The candidates complete a self-reflection early in their program; the second assessment is completed by the method’s instructor prior to the internship, and the final disposition is completed by the candidate, the mentor teacher, and the supervisor. Each is designed to be recursive and to hold all parties accountable to the rigorous standards of the School of Education. In addition, as previously noted under the Mission of the School of Education, eight dispositions adopted in Fall 2018 are routinely assessed throughout the candidate’s program of study (i.e., upon admission to the School of Education, during courses of study in their e-Portfolio, during other courses via Joule surveys, and ultimately during their two internships placement evaluations).

Notre Dame of Maryland University, though comparatively small to our many neighboring colleges and universities in Maryland, yields the second largest number of teacher certificates. While some of these certificates are attained by undergraduates in our liberal arts/elementary education program, the vast majority are attained through our Master’s degree programs. These degrees in teacher education are largely designed to cultivate understanding of and instructional strategies in addressing the increasing diversity of the student population in Maryland and to fill some our largest gaps in the workforce: special education, TESOL, mathematics and science.

The following metrics are presented to document the strength of our programs and the success of our graduates. These metrics include Praxis I and II scores, mentor teachers perceptions of student teachers, program requirements, graduate survey data, employment status, etc.

Included in the report below are annual reporting measures which document key components required for accreditation. For ease of reference, these 8 outcomes are noted below and can be located in the section(s) referenced
Annual Reporting Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 | A.5.4)

There are four “Impact” Measures as follows:

  1. Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1)
    [information about this measure can be found in Section D under narrative responses ]
  2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2)
    [information about this measure can be found in Section B]
  3. Satisfaction of employers and employment Milestones (Component 4.3 | A.4.1)
    [information about the satisfaction of employers can be found in Section F; information about employment milestones can be found under “Award-Winning Teachers” at the following link: https://www.ndm.edu/colleges-schools/school-education/award-winning-teachers ]
  4. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)
    [information about this measure can be found in Section D]

There are also four “Outcome” Measures as follows:

  1. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels)
    [information about this measure can be found in section ___ ]
  2. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced levels)
    [information about this measure can be found in Section A]
  3. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)
    [information about this measure can be found in Section E]
  4. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced levels)
    [information about this measure can be found in the following links:

A. Praxis Scores:

As a requirement for admission to the School of Education, all candidates must pass Praxis I.  This ensures that 100% of all candidates eligible for internship have passed Praxis I.  As a requirement for teacher (or advanced degree) certification, all candidates must also pass Praxis II to demonstrate their command of the content knowledge in their respective field of study.  The following results were obtained for 2015-2018 and posted in the annual Title II Report for Higher Education thus demonstrating outcome measure #6 for CAEP Component 5.4/A5.4:

Single-Assessment Institution Level Pass-Rate Data for Praxis II: Regular Teacher Preparation Program

Educational Testing Service

HEA – Title II Academic Years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

State

Maryland

Type of Assessment

Number Taking Assessment

Number Passing Assessment

Institutional Pass Rate

Statewide Pass Rate

Art Content and Analysis
2017-18 11 173 11 100%
2016-17 7 - - -
2015-16 8 - - -
Core Academic Skills for Education: Mathematics
2017-18 70 164 70 100%
2016-17 53 165 52 100%
2015-16 26 165 26 100%
Core Academic Skills for Education: Reading
2017-18 70 182 70 100%
2016-17 49 183 49 100%
2015-16 29 179 29 100%
Core Academic Skills for Education: Writing
2017-18 68 171 68 100%
2016-17 47 173 47 100%
2015-16 25 172 25 100%
Early Childhood Education
2017-18 25 179 25 100%
2016-17 10 178 10 100%
2015-16 10 186 10 100%
Elementary Education Instructional Practice and Applications
2017-18 49 171 49 100%
2016-17 40 173 40 100%
2015-16 54 174 54 100%
English Language Arts: Content and Analysis
2017-18 6 - - -
2016-17 10 181 10 100%
2015-16 16 183 16 100%
English to Speakers of Other Languages
2017-18 10 185 10 100%
2016-17 - - - -
2015-16 - - - -
Praxis I Mathematics (Discontinued)
2017-18 6 - - -
2016-17 25 180 25 100%
2015-16 47 179 46 98%
Praxis I Reading (Discontinued)
2017-18 6 - - -
2016-17 25 181 25 100%
2015-16 44 180 44 100%
Praxis I Writing (Discontinued)
2017-18 8 - - -
2016-17 29 176 29 100%
2015-16 49 176 49 100%
Principles of Teaching and Learning 7-12
2017-18 25 182 25 100%
2016-17 39 182 39 100%
2015-16 41 183 41 100%
Principles of Learning and Teaching Early Child
2017-18 25 174 25 100%
2016-17 10 171 10 100%
2015-16 22 176 22 100%
Principles of Learning and Teaching K-6
2017-18 50 179 50 100%
2016-17 40 180 40 100%
2015-16 55 179 55 100%
Special Education Core Knowledge & Applications
2017-18 42 176 42 100%
2016-17 48 176 48 100%
2015-16 50 177 50 100%
Social Studies Content & Interpretation
2017-18 7 - - -
2016-17 10 172 10 100%
2015-16 9 - - -

Notes:
1. The number of program completers found, matched and used in the passing rate calculation may not equal the sum of the column labeled "Number Taking Assessment" since a completer can take more than one assessment.

2. The content area being assessed must have a ‘N’ of 10 or more students taking the assessment for a scale score and passing rate to be calculated. The following tests were taken but in neither year was a ‘N’ of 10 reported. Despite the lack of information from the Title II Report, NDMU can affirm that less than 1% of teacher candidates have not passed these assessments. Candidates continue to demonstrate a very strong knowledge of their content area. In nearly all content areas, the average passing score of NDMU candidates exceeds the minimum passing score required by the Maryland State Department of Education.

  • Biology Content Knowledge
  • Business Education Content Knowledge
  • Chemistry Content Knowledge
  • Computer Science
  • Earth and Space Sciences
  • Elementary Education Mathematics Content Knowledge Test
  • Elementary Education Reading & Language Arts Content Knowledge Test
  • Elementary Education Science Content Knowledge Test
  • Elementary Education Social Studies
  • English to Speakers of Other Languages (DISC)
  • French World Language
  • Mathematics Content Knowledge
  • Music Content & Instruction
  • OPI Spanish
  • OPIC French
  • OPIC Spanish
  • Spanish World Language
  • Theatre
  • World and U.S. History Content Knowledge
  • WPT French
  • WPT Spanish

B. Teacher Candidate Preparation Outcomes:

Each semester mentor teachers, from the many Professional Development School sites with which the University partners, assess the performance of teacher candidates on a wide range of specific skills that are aligned to the ten InTASC standards that were developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and which demonstrate Indicators of teaching effectiveness in support of CAEP standard 4 (Component 4.2). For a complete listing of these ten standards and their respective indicators associated with performances, essential knowledge and critical dispositions, go to: https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_2011.pdf The SOE faculty and staff use this critical feedback to guide future decisions pertaining to program preparation.  These mentor teachers repeatedly assign very high marks to the SOE and its preparation of these teacher candidates (as depicted in the tables that follow).

The following questions were asked of mentor teachers at the conclusion of the intern’s experience. Data are included for the last three cycles/semesters.

Below are 36 Likert-style statements regarding your perception of your intern's performance. Most statements are aligned to the new InTASC standards and Danielson Framework for Effective Teaching. Please respond to each one as follows: How prepared was your intern to...

Spring 2019 Results

  WELL-PREPARED PREPARED SOMEWHAT PREPARED UNPREPARED N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (I-1) 45.45%
15
45.45%
15
6.06%
2
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.33
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (I-2) 45.45%
15
42.42%
14
12.12%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33 3.33
3. Know the required content (I-4) 46.88%
15
37.50%
12
9.38%
3
6.25%
2
0.00
0
32 3.25
4. Effectively teach the required content (I-5) 51.52%
17
33.33%
11
9.09%
3
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
33 3.38
5. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 63.64%
21
21.21%
7
12.12%
4
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.45
6. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning(I-5) 57.58%
19
24.24%
8
12.12%
4
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
33 3.41
7. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners (I-6) 30.30%
10
42.42%
14
18.18%
6
0.00%
0
9.09%
3
33 3.13
8. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-10) 72.73%
24
24.24%
8
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
33 3.75
9. Use technology in ways that improve learning (I-8) 42.42%
14
39.39%
13
15.15%
5
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
33 3.28
10. Positively impact student growth (I-7) 48.48%
16
39.39%
13
9.09%
3
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.33
11. Attend to the whole child (I-3) 57.58%
19
21.21%
7
18.18%
6
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.33
12. Vary instructional strategies (I-8) 42.42%
14
33.33%
11
18.18%
6
0.00%
0
6.06%
2
33 3.26
13. Demonstrate cross-cultural understanding by reducing biases via materials/strategies (I–5) 45.45%
15
36.36%
12
12.12%
4
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
33 3.28
14. Support the development of students' higher order thinking skills (I-5) 33.33%
11
45.45%
15
15.15%
5
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
33 3.13
15. Respond appropriately to student behavior (I–3) 36.36%
12
27.27%
9
21.21%
7
15.15%
5
0.00%
0
33 2.85
16. Promote class discussion/collaboration (I–3) 51.52%
17
36.36%
12
9.09%
3
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.36
17. Model Spoken language- rarely makes errors (I-9) 69.70%
23
24.24%
8
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.61
18. Model Spoken language-monitors students' usage (I-6) 48.48%
16
45.45%
15
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.39
19. Model Writing Skills- rarely makes errors (I-9) 66.67%
22
18.18%
6
6.06%
2
3.03%
1
6.06%
2
33 3.58
20. Model Writing Skills – monitors students’ usage (I-6) 45.45%
15
36.36%
12
6.06%
2
3.03%
1
9.09%
3
33 3.37
21. Routinely be reflective in his/her practice to accurately judge the effectiveness of instruction (I-9) 57.58%
19
33.33%
11
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
33 3.53
22. Take advantage of school opportunities/resources for professional development (I-9) 69.70%
23
15.15%
5
9.09%
3
0.00%
0
6.06%
2
33 3.65
23. Develop a good working relationship with other school personnel (I-10) 75.76%
25
18.18%
6
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
33 3.75
24. Develop a good working relationship with parents/community (I-10) 45.45%
15
30.30%
10
9.09%
3
0.00%
0
15.15%
5
33 3.43
25. Demonstrate regular attendance (I-9) 81.82%
27
15.15%
5
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33 3.79%
26. Demonstrate Punctuality (I-9) 81.82%
27
12.12%
4
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
0.00
0
33 3.76
27. Maintain a Professional Appearance (I-9) 84.85%
28
12.12%
4
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33 3.82
28. Use a voice that is effective (appropriate volume/inflection) (I-9) 72.73%
24
21.21%
7
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33 3.67
29. Demonstrate Self-Confidence (I-9) 63.64%
21
21.21%
7
9.09%
3
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
33 3.42
30. Demonstrate Initiative (I-10) 66.67%
22
21.21%
7
9.09%
3
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
33 3.52
31. Use feedback (accepting/responsive) (I-10) 72.73
24
24.24%
8
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
33 3.70
32. Teach to the Maryland Career and College Readiness Standards (I-4) 66.67%
22
24.24%
8
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
33 3.63
33. Understand the Danielson Framework for teacher effectiveness (I-9) 63.64%
21
18.18%
6
9.09%
3
0.00%
0
9.09%
3
33 3.60
34. Understand standardized assessments (I-6) 45.45%
15
33.33%
11
9.09%
3
0.00%
0
12.12%
4
33 3.41
35. Employ Student Learning Objectives (I-7) 45.45%
15
33.33%
11
12.12%
4
0.00%
0
9.09%
3
33 3.37

When asked to describe the strengths of these teacher candidates, mentor teachers offered comments such as the following:

  • My intern showed many areas of strength, but her greatest was compassion. She was always highly prepared, eager to go above and beyond to reach the need of individual students, active with after school activities and was a team player.
  • My intern was a remarkable intern. From the beginning of the internship she demonstrated initiative to delve into unfamiliar content and standards and created engaging and creative lessons plans, while still reflecting on and mirroring implemented behavior strategies.
  • Her lessons are well thought-out and implemented. She displays confidence. This causes the students to be able to trust her. This is very important to the learning environment.
  • She is extremely prepared and demonstrates a high level of professionalism. She is very reflective in regard to her teaching and is passionate about meeting the needs of her students. Ruth plans thoroughly and uses feedback to make improvements to her teaching.
  • He is reflective and adaptive in his practice. He notices when his students need more help and adjusts accordingly.
  • My intern has many strengths! She is passionate about children, teaching, and language. She is an exceptionally hard worker and is always willing to try new teaching strategies. She continually evaluates her teaching and reflects on ways to improve on it. She has built great relationships with the students.
  • She is well-planned and determined to be successful. She not only teaches children how to prepare for success, but she models it daily. She is also passionate about teaching and everyone in the room can feel her excitement.
  • She takes notes on everything. She is not afraid of asking questions for a better understanding. Reflects on her lessons and how things were taught.
  • My intern is eager, engaging, and creative. She is willing to go out and research what she does not know, and take instructional risks.

Fall 2018 Results

  WELL-PREPARED PREPARED SOMEWHAT PREPARED UNPREPARED N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (I-1) 43.75%
28
43.75%
28
10.94%
7
1.56%
1
0.00%
0
64 3.30
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (I-2) 35.94%
23
35.94%
23
17.19%
11
7.81%
5
3.13%
2
64 3.03
3. Know the required content (I-4) 39.06%
25
37.50%
24
15.63%
10
4.69%
3
3.13%
2
64 3.15
4. Effectively teach the required content (I-5) 31.25%
20
39.06%
25
15.63%
10
4.69%
3
9.38%
6
64 3.07
5. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 60.94%
39
26.56%
17
6.25%
4
3.13%
2
3.13%
2
64 3.50
6. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning (I-5) 32.81%
21
40.63%
26
18.75%
12
3.13%
2
4.69%
3
64 3.08
7. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners (I-6) 21.88%
14
29.69%
19
23.44%
15
10.94%
7
14.06%
9
64 2.73
8. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-10) 60.94%
39
25.00%
16
9.38%
6
3.13%
2
1.56%
1
64 3.46
9. Use technology in ways that improve learning (I-8) 32.81%
21
37.50%
24
14.06%
9
9.38%
6
6.25%
4
64 3.00
10. Positively impact student growth (I-7) 39.06%
25
37.50%
24
15.63%
10
3.13%
2
4.69%
3
64 3.18
11. Attend to the whole child (I-3) 42.19%
27
42.19%
27
9.38%
6
3.13%
2
3.13%
2
64 3.27
12. Vary instructional strategies (I-8) 28.13%
18
32.81%
21
23.44%
15
9.38%
6
6.25%
4
64 2.85
13. Demonstrate cross-cultural understanding by reducing biases via materials/strategies (I–5) 33.33%
21
36.51%
23
9.52%
6
3.17%
2
17.46%
11
63 3.21
14. Support the development of students' higher order thinking skills (I-5) 24.19%
15
41.94%
26
22.58%
14
6.45%
4
4.84%
3
62 2.88
15. Respond appropriately to student behavior (I–3) 32.26%
20
37.10%
23
22.58%
14
6.45%
4
1.61%
1
62 2.97
16. Promote class discussion/collaboration (I–3) 36.51%
23
38.10%
24
19.05%
12
4.76%
3
1.59%
1
63 3.08
17. Model Spoken language- rarely makes errors (I-9) 64.06%
41
23.44%
15
9.38%
6
1.56%
1
1.56%
1
64 3.52
18. Model Spoken language- monitors students' usage (I-6) 45.31%
29
35.94%
23
6.25%
4
6.25%
4
6.25%
4
64 3.28
19. Model Writing Skills- rarely makes errors (I-9) 57.81%
37
28.13%
18
4.69%
3
1.56%
1
7.81%
5
64 3.54
20. Model Writing Skills – monitors students’ usage (I-6) 40.63%
26
39.06%
25
4.69%
3
3.13%
2
12.50%
8
64 3.34
21. Routinely be reflective in his/her practice to accurately judge the effectiveness of instruction (I-9) 50.00%
32
32.81%
21
7.81%
5
6.25%
4
3.13%
2
64 3.31
22. Take advantage of school opportunities/resources for professional development (I-9) 56.25%
36
26.56%
17
6.25%
4
4.69%
3
6.25%
4
64 3.43
23. Develop a good working relationship with other school personnel (I-10) 67.19%
43
17.19%
11
7.81%
5
6.25%
4
1.56%
1
64 3.48
24. Develop a good working relationship with parents/community (I-10) 40.63%
26
28.13%
18
14.06%
9
1.56%
1
15.63%
10
64 3.28
25. Demonstrate regular attendance (I-9) 75.00%
48
21.88%
14
1.56%
1
1.56%
1
0.00%
0
64 3.70
26. Demonstrate Punctuality (I-9) 71.88%
46
17.19%
11
6.25%
4
4.69%
3
0.00%
0
64 3.56
27. Maintain a Professional Appearance (I-9) 70.31%
45
25.00%
16
4.69%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
64 3.66
28. Use a voice that is effective (appropriate volume/inflection) (I-9) 50.00%
32
31.25%
20
14.06%
9
4.69%
3
0.00%
0
64 3.27
29. Demonstrate Self-Confidence (I-9) 54.69%
35
29.69%
19
12.50%
8
3.13%
2
0.00%
0
64 3.36
30. Demonstrate Initiative (I-10) 58.73%
37
23.81%
15
9.52%
6
7.94%
5
0.00%
0
63 3.33
31. Use feedback (accepting/responsive) (I-10) 62.50%
40
21.88%
14
7.81%
5
4.69%
3
3.13%
2
64 3.47
32. Teach to the Common Core Math Standards (I-4) 29.69%
19
25.00%
16
9.38%
6
3.13%
2
32.81%
21
64 3.21
33. Teach to the Common Core Reading Standards (I-4) 29.03%
18
24.19%
15
19.35%
12
1.61%
1
25.81%
16
62 3.09
34. Understand the Danielson Framework for teacher effectiveness (I-9) 36.51%
23
36.51%
23
15.87%
10
1.59%
1
9.52%
6
63 3.19
35. Understand standardized assessments (I-6) 28.13%
18
37.50%
24
14.06%
9
3.13%
2
17.19%
11
64 3.09
36. Employ Student Learning Objectives (I-7) 28.13%
18
35.94%
23
17.19%
11
1.56%
1
17.19%
11
64 3.09

When asked to describe the strengths of these teacher candidates, mentor teachers offered comments such as the following:

  • She had great knowledge of the classroom. She was able to help implement a behavior plan for a student and she was able to help students that had difficulty communicating.
  • She is an excellent teacher and very well organized. She is very effective at teaching lessons using the common core curriculum.
  • She fosters positive relationships with students. Is reflective and receptive to feedback. Creative and enthusiastic in trying different types of student incentives.
  • His ability to come into a classroom and allow students to feel welcome and appreciated. He has a special spark that attracts students. They are all asking when is he going to come back? There is just a sense of ease and comfort about him.
  • My intern had experience in a preschool setting as well as substituting in the county which helped to prepare her for her placement.
  • She has a gentle way with the kids and gets on the floor to work with them. She has a keen sense of what they need. She is reflective and eager to learn.
  • From the very day of her arrival, she has demonstrated professionalism in working with both staff and students. So flexibility has been a major strength.
  • She is very engaged in in the process of planning and teaching. She has problem solved with me about a challenging group of newcomers. She then took it upon herself to create visuals to help with student understanding.
  • Her professionalism and desire to learn and receive feedback was stellar. It is clear that she cares about the students and their learning already.
  • My intern was extremely professional and took initiative in all areas. She was eager to learn from me, engage with the students and the school community, and attended several school functions that she did not have to attend. It is clear that wants to do all she can to learn and grow professionally.

Spring 2018 Results

  WELL-PREPARED PREPARED SOMEWHAT PREPARED UNPREPARED TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (I-2) 66.00%
33
26.00%
13
6.00%
3
2.00%
1
50 3.56
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (I-7). 42.00%
21
46.00%
23
10.00%
5
2.00%
1
50 3.28
3. Teach the required content (I-4) 62.00%
31
24.00%
12
14.00%
7
0.00%
0
50 3.48
4. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 78.00%
39
16.00%
8
6.00%
3
0.00%
0
50 3.72
5. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning (I-1,3,5) 61.22%
30
24.49%
12
12.24%
6
2.04%
1
49 3.45
6. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners (I-6) 44.90%
22
38.78%
19
10.20%
5
6.12%
3
49 3.22
7. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-9,10) 76.00%
38
16.00%
8
6.00%
3
2.00%
1
50 3.66
8. Use technology in ways that improve learning (I-2,5,8) 48.00%
24
38.00%
19
12.00%
6
2.00%
1
50 3.32
9. Positively impact student growth (I-7,8) 64.00%
32
26.00%
13
10.00%
5
0.00%
0
50 3.54

When asked to describe the strengths of these teacher candidates, mentor teachers offered comments such as the following:

  • She is very strong with technology, lesson planning, developing relationships with students and staff, and impacting student growth.
  • Ability to work with all students -she develops a good relationship with students and colleagues -very well organized -conveys that organization to the students -prepares and executes great lessons.
  • She is very natural in the role of art teacher. She has a wonderful rapport with the students. She has a firm grasp of the content and understands the importance of making accessible to all students. She is diligent about checking student progress to ensure their understanding, completion and success. She is spontaneous and creative, so when the unexpected happens, she is able to roll with it and supplement or replace lessons as needed.
  • Ability to collaborate with colleagues and strong communication skills. Her ability to build strong relationships with students and ability to be a very reflective in her instructional delivery and practice.
  • She has a strong background in Biology and shares that information and passion with students. She is very organized and detail oriented in her planning and delivery.
  • Planning for instruction was certainly my intern's greatest strength. She was well planned in advance and was able to implement her plan with ease. She understood the population she was teaching and worked hard to meet their needs.
  • Cultural sensitivity, student engagement, comprehensible input, student interaction, questioning, building background knowledge.
  • He was personable, well informed and a professional in his content area, balances work tasks effectively, tolerant, and worked hard to establish routines and relationships with kids and staff.
  • All of my interns have done an excellent job connecting with our students and differentiating instruction for all learners.
  • She builds relationships with peers and tries to utilize a variety of strategies to keep students engaged and to manage behavior. She is open to feedback and does well to apply feedback into future lessons. Great job with positive reinforcement.
  • My intern is receptive to feedback and seeks to build a positive rapport with students, their families, and our professional community. She is very aware of the teacher actions that build a positive learning community and classroom environment.
  • Building trusting relationships with students from diverse backgrounds. Willingness to engage on a personal and academic level. Maintaining high expectations for achievement and behavior. Providing a supporting environment that encouraged students to take risks in language learning.

SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In Spring 2018, it was decided that we would abbreviate the number of questions asked of mentor teachers, both to align with the newly adopted employer survey AND to hopefully elicit a larger percentage of respondents. While the latter objective was achieved, it was deemed that it would be better to maintain the larger number of questions and to simply embed these ‘employer’ survey questions into the first 9 questions on the survey instrument. Long term, it is our goal to be able to demonstrate some predictive validity with respect to comparing responses to these 9 questions from 4 groups:

  • a. Teacher candidates’ perceptions of their preparedness upon completion of their program;
  • b. Mentor teachers’ perceptions of the teacher candidates’ preparedness
  • c. New teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness one year into the profession
  • d. Employers’ perceptions of their preparedness one year into the profession

2. Mean scores were not appreciably different between fall 2018 and spring 2019 (nor when compared to the 9 questions posed in the spring 2018 survey). As has held true in the past, fall scores are often slightly higher than spring scores; anecdotally, this may result from the fact the teacher candidates in the fall begin the year in August co-planning and setting up the room and jointly establishing the cultural norms for the class; whereas teacher candidates in the spring begin in January, long after the routines and teacher-student rapport has been established. This phenomenon may be worth future study.

3. The mean score for one criterion “#15 Respond appropriately to student behavior” continues to remain the lowest itemized score. Notwithstanding efforts by NDMU to infuse additional classroom management emphases in coursework, despite designing a special Google Docs resource center for teacher candidates to access/use, and offering a new Classroom Management course as an elective, this criterion remains the lowest scored. Skills in this professional domain may simply require more time to cultivate.

C. Clinical Practice Requirements and Outcomes and Consistency/Accuracy in Measurement:

  1. A minimum of 15 field/clinical days are required of candidates in the School of Education.  Most programs include a full three-week clinical experience to meet or exceed this requirement.
  2. The student teaching (internship) is a minimum of 100 days and depending upon the program of study is rendered over a nine, ten or twenty-week experience.  This NDMU minimal requirement is in alignment with the required Professional Development School standards that require all initial full time interns to complete a minimum of 100 days of clinical and student-teaching to successfully complete their internship requirements.  Most NDMU candidates exceed these minimal expectations which vary significantly due to a hybrid of different pathways to initial certification.
  3. Within the student teaching experience, candidates teach full-time a minimum of four weeks.  However, this varies depending upon the proficiency of the intern; most teacher candidates exceed this minimum expectation and assume full teaching or co-teaching responsibilities related to planning and executing lessons.
  4. 100% of the teacher candidates in the 2018-2019 academic year satisfactorily completed the clinical practice requirements, including methods courses, student teaching, and action research projects.
  5. With regard to the Professional Knowledge Praxis II requirement
    1. 100% of the 142 program completers in 2017-2018 passed the Professional Knowledge Praxis II requirements
    2. 99% of the 143 program completers in 2016-2017 passed the Professional Knowledge Praxis II requirements
    3. 97% of the 156 program completers in 2015-2016 passed the Professional Knowledge Praxis II requirements

D. Graduate Outcomes:

1. Survey Data obtained from initial certification program completers are obtained each semester documenting NDMU’s efforts to comply with CAEP standard 4 (Component 4.4/A.4.2 on the satisfaction of completers).

These data consistently demonstrate that teacher candidate graduates are confident that their NDMU preparation program has been rigorous and has fully prepared them to pursue a career in the teaching profession. Each of these criteria is aligned to the InTASC standards. The following data were obtained from the three most recent cycles/semesters of survey data from Spring 2019, Fall 2018 and Spring 2018.

Below are 31 Likert-style criteria regarding your preparation for the internship. These criteria are aligned to the new InTASC standards and Danielson Framework for Effective Teaching.
Please assess how prepared you are to...

Spring 2019

  I CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL THAT EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I INCONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT MY ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THIS BEHAVIOR. N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (1-1). 58.06%
18
38.71%
12
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.55
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (1-2) 35.48%
11
61.29%
19
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.32
3. Know the required content (I-4) 41.94%
13
54.84%
17
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
3.23%
1
31 3.43
4. Effectively teach the required content (I-5) 45.16%
14
48.39%
15
6.45%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.39
5. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 74.19%
23
25.81%
8
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.74
6. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning (I-5) 45.16%
14
51.61%
16
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.42
7. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners (I-6) 29.03%
9
67.74%
21
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.26
8. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-10) 70.97%
22
29.03%
9
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.71
9. Use technology effectively to improve learning (I-8) 50.00%
15
43.33%
13
6.67%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
30 3.43
10. Positively impact student academic growth (I-7) 45.16%
14
51.61%
16
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.42
11. Attend to the Whole Child (I–3) 35.48%
11
61.29%
19
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.32
12. Vary my instructional strategies (I–8) 48.39%
15
45.16%
14
6.45%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.42
13. Use higher order thinking skills (I-5) 32.26%
10
58.06%
18
9.68%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.23
14. Employ motivational strategies (I-8) 38.71%
12
54.84%
17
6.45%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.32
15. Employ classroom management strategies (I-3) 45.16%
14
45.16%
14
9.68%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.35
16. Display verbal and nonverbal communication (I-2) 51.61%
16
48.39%
15
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.52
17. Design standards-based Unit Planning (I-7) 32.26%
10
61.29%
19
6.45%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.26
18. Design standards-based Lesson Planning (I-7 ) 41.94%
13
58.06%
18
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.42
19. Design formative assessments (I–6) 45.16%
14
54.84%
17
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.45
20. Design summative assessments (I–6) 35.48%
11
58.06%
18
6.45%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.29
21. Use multiple approaches to assessment to inform future instruction (I-6) 41.94%
13
54.84%
17
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.39
22. Demonstrate ongoing self-reflection (I–9) 51.61%
16
48.39%
15
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.52
23. Engage in professional growth opportunities (I-9) 41.94%
13
54.84%
17
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.39
24. Develop positive teacher-parent connections (I–10) 25.81%
8
51.61%
16
19.35%
6
0.00%
0
3.23%
1
31 3.07
25. Collaborate with the school community (I–10) 43.33%
13
43.33%
13
13.33%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
30 3.30
26. Demonstrate mutual respect with students (I-2) 70.97%
22
29.03%
9
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.71
27. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness Math Standards (I-4) 32.26%
10
41.94%
13
3.23%
1
3.23%
1
19.35%
6
31 3.28
28. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness Reading Standards (I-4) 45.16%
14
45.16%
14
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
6.45%
2
31 3.45
29. Employ the Danielson Framework for Teacher Effectiveness (used in most teacher evaluations in MD) (I-9) 35.48%
11
54.84%
17
9.68%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
31 3.26
30. Understand standardized assessments (I-6) 25.81%
8
61.29%
19
9.68%
3
3.23%
1
0.00%
0
31 3.10
31. Develop your own Student Learning Objectives (I-7) 38.71%
12
48.39%
15
9.68%
3
0.00%
0
3.23%
1
31 3.30

When asked to describe their strengths, teacher candidate offered comments such as the following:

  • My curiosity and interest in improving my own performance and consistency and my interest in learning more about my content area, teaching, my students and research based approaches.
  • Lesson planning, working with other department teachers, challenging gifted students, teaching aligned with NGSS standards.
  • Teaching to the whole child and demonstrating mutual respect with students.
  • My area of strength is being able to connect with the diverse needs of the students. Being able to see the students how they are and who they can become.
  • I feel that my areas of strength are being able to relate to the children (from having my own) and engaging my students in all lessons! WE have FUN while we learn!
  • I have an extremely strong report with my students and try my best to build them up. I really want them to feel special and unique in that they are bilingual. I try to vary activities in order to make learning fun, while still challenging my students.
  • I find my strengths in behavior and classroom management, in terms of finding effective ways to connect with and motivate students in order to teach the lesson. I have a strength in connecting with my students and building a report in order to have more buy in from students. I find that multitasking is a huge part of the special education world, and I feel strongly in my skills of handling many tasks at once.
  • I feel that I am able to plan well for lessons. I know how to plan instruction and assessment and how those should go hand in hand. I can also plan out how a lesson should look (warm up, prior knowledge, instruction, small groups, closing, etc.).
  • I am creative in my lesson plans, and try to incorporate a variety of materials for both whole-group and independent work. I make a conscious effort to cater my lessons and materials to be suitable for all students learning. I am able to form very strong bonds with my students, and am able to understand them and their disabilities.
  • My particular area of strength is the ability to make connections and build relationships with the students so that they are interested in learning and want to be engaged. I love learning their likes and dislikes and using those within the classroom and lesson to help students want to learn.

When asked how they have made an impact on student learning, the teacher candidates noted demonstrating NDMU’s efforts to comply with CAEP standard 4 (Component 4.1 regarding Impact on P-12 learning and development):

  • I think I had a positive impact as evidenced by my students achieving 75% or better on classroom based assessments, and in the event this did not occur, I was able to adjust instruction to help them get there.
  • I believe that I was able to build strong relationships with my students and adapt my teaching to meet the needs of my individual students. I used exit tickets frequently to measure learning and to inform instruction.
  • I believe I have helped my students to learn not just about the subject area, but also to learn more about themselves their strengths and weaknesses in academic settings and in their language proficiency and cultural awareness, and how it is that they learn. I measured students learning in various ways of formative and summative assessments designed to take various lengths of times, some more formal than others, some based on rubrics, others on numerical standards. My goal is to assess students so that I did not have a method that would unfairly advantage or disadvantage students due to the assessment method, I had some that were made between me and colleagues, some that were standardized, and the bulk of which I created. I also included performance assessments and self-reflection and self-assessments throughout the year to measure what the student's perception of their learning is, and of their growth, against my perception of their learning and growth. I designed these methods to measure comprehensibility in their communications, as well as proficiency in the 5 modes of communication and culture.
  • I was able to make strides with students during my action research. I measured this with pre and post testing.
  • I have seen my students make incredible growth! I am so proud of them because I see them utilizing the vocabulary we have studied, even when not in my class. They make mistakes but are not afraid to play with the language, which is a major goal of mine. I measured their learning with summative and formative assessments, ranging from comprehension checks during discussions to formal Socratic exit tickets.
  • I believe I had a strong impact on student learning. I measured student progress through progress reports, observational data, grades, and formative verbal assessment throughout each lesson.
  • Offering a new perspective and fresh ideas helped students who were struggling with content. I feel that I developed positive relationships with my students. Many of the students that I worked with have difficult home lives and learning disabilities. Having another adult who cares about them and believes in their abilities is extremely important for these students. I feel I was able to provide that for many of my students. I measured the learning of my students through formal and informal assessment but also by observing their overall growth. Many students are working on communication skills and social interactions. I measured these by observing their progress and noting when they are using the strategies they have been taught.
  • Prior to the start of each unit, I did pre-assessments to gauge where my students were. During lessons, I did formative assessments through observations and collecting recording sheets. At the closure of each unit, I did summative assessments through exit tickets.
  • I impacted the learning of my students by building relationships with them during work and play time. I made my lessons engaging by having them on both the board and the students' iPads. I measured the learning on my students by asking multiple formative assessment questions on the iPad during the lesson and taking data on the number of prompts needed (if any) students needed to complete their exit tickets at the end of the lesson.

Fall 2018

  I CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL THAT EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I INCONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT MY ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THIS BEHAVIOR. N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (1-1). 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (1-2) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
3. Know the required content (I-4) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
4. Effectively teach the required content (I-5) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
5. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
6. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning (I-5) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
7. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners (I-6) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
8. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-10) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
9. Use technology effectively to improve learning (I-8) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
10. Positively impact student academic growth (I-7) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
11. Attend to the Whole Child (I–3) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
12. Vary my instructional strategies (I–8) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
13. Use higher order thinking skills (I-5) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
14. Employ motivational strategies (I-8) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
15. Employ classroom management strategies (I-3) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
16. Display verbal and nonverbal communication (I-2) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
17. Design standards-based Unit Planning (I-7) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
18. Design standards-based Lesson Planning (I-7) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
19. Design formative assessments (I–6) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
20. Design summative assessments (I–6) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
21. Use multiple approaches to assessment to inform future instruction (I-6) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
22. Demonstrate ongoing self-reflection (I–9) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
23. Engage in professional growth opportunities (I-9) 75.00%
3
0.00%
0
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.50
24. Develop positive teacher-parent connections (I–10) 75.00%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
4 3.25
25. Collaborate with the school community (I–10) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
26. Demonstrate mutual respect with students (I-2) 100.00%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 4.00
27. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness Math Standards (I-4) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
28. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness Reading Standards (I-4) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
29. Employ the Danielson Framework for Teacher Effectiveness (used in most teacher evaluations in MD) (I-9) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75
30. Understand standardized assessments (I-6) 50.00%
2
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
4 3.00
31. Develop your own Student Learning Objectives (I-7) 75.00%
3
25.00%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4 3.75

When asked to describe their strengths, teacher candidate offered comments such as the following:

  • Professionalism
  • I make personal connections with the students to make them feel welcome and safe in the learning environment because I believe in supporting the whole child.
  • Classroom management
  • Professionalism

When asked how they have made an impact on student learning, the teacher candidates noted demonstrating NDMU’s efforts to comply with CAEP standard 4 (Component 4.1 regarding Impact on P-12 learning and development):

  • Written assessments and observations
  • In both placements I worked in morning math remediation and tutoring sessions with groups of students to help improve their math performance scores. I began the morning small group in my second placement on my own and students’ scores have since gone up on tests significantly by entire grade letters.

Spring 2018

  I CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL THAT EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. I INCONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE BEHAVIOR AT A LEVEL EXPECTED OF A BEGINNING TEACHER. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT MY ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THIS BEHAVIOR. N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1. Understand the diverse needs of students (1-2). 57.78%
26
33.33%
15
8.89%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
45 3.49
2. Plan for the diverse needs of students (1-7) 48.89%
22
35.56%
16
15.56%
7
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
45 3.33
3. Teach the required content (I-4) 61.36%
27
29.55%
13
4.55%
2
4.55%
2
0.00%
0
44 3.48
4. Create a respectful environment that supports learning for all students (I-3) 84.44%
38
11.11%
5
2.22%
1
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
45 3.78
5. Implement effective instruction that engages students in learning (I-1,3,5) 55.56%
25
33.33%
15
6.67%
3
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
45 3.40
6. Implement a range of assessments to measure progress of learners toimprove instruction (I-6) 42.22%
19
40.00%
18
13.33%
6
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
45 3.20
7. Demonstrate professionalism with stakeholders (I-9, 10) 73.33%
33
24.44%
11
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
45 3.75
8. Use technology in ways that improve learning (2,5,8) 48.89%
22
35.56%
16
11.11%
5
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
45 3.29
9. Positively impact student growth (I-7,8) 71.11%
32
22.22%
10
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
45 3.68
10. Attend to the Whole Child (I – 1,2,3) 68.89%
31
28.89%
13
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
45 3.70
11. Vary your instructional strategies (I – 8) 57.78%
26
33.33%
15
6.67%
3
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
45 3.47
12. Use higher order thinking skills (I – 1,2,5,8) 51.11%
23
40.00%
18
4.44%
2
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
45 3.38
13. Employ motivational strategies (I – 3,8) 48.89%
22
40.00%
18
6.67%
3
2.22%
1
2.22%
1
45 3.39
14. Employ classroom management strategies (I – 3) 31.11%
14
44.44%
20
15.56%
7
8.89%
4
0.00%
0
45 2.98
15. Display verbal and nonverbal communication (I – 2,3,8) 57.78%
26
35.56%
16
4.44%
2
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
45 3.49
16. Standards-based Unit Planning (I – 4,7) 48.89%
22
31.11%
14
13.33%
6
6.67%
3
0.00%
0
45 3.22
17. Standards-based Lesson Planning (I –4,7 ) 60.00%
27
24.44%
11
8.89%
4
6.67%
3
0.00%
0
45 3.38
18. Design formative assessments (I – 6) 53.33%
24
33.33%
15
11.11%
5
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
45 3.38
19. Design summative assessments (I –6 ) 35.56%
16
44.44%
20
13.33%
6
6.67%
3
0.00%
0
45 3.09
20. Use multiple approaches to assessment (I – 6) 46.67%
21
40.00% 6.67%
3
6.67%
3
0.00%
0
45 3.27
21. Demonstrate ongoing self-reflection (I – 9) 73.33%
33
24.44% 0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
45 3.75
22. Engage in professional growth opportunities (I – 9,10) 68.89%
31
28.89%
13
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
45 3.67
23. Develop positive teacher-parent connections (I – 10) 45.45%
20
40.91%
18
6.82%
3
4.55%
2
2.27%
1
44 3.30
24. Collaborate with the school community (I – 10) 48.89%
22
37.78%
17
8.89%
4
2.22%
1
2.22%
1
45 3.36
25. Demonstrate shared values and mutual respect with students (I –2,3,10) 73.33%
33
24.44%
11
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
45 3.75
26. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness (Common Core) Math Standards 46.67%
21
22.22%
10
11.11%
5
2.22%
1
17.78%
8
45 3.38
27. Teach to the Maryland College and Career Readiness (Common Core) Reading Standards 53.33%
24
26.67%
12
8.89%
4
2.22%
1
8.89%
4
45 3.44
28. Employ the Danielson Framework for Teacher Effectiveness (used in most teacher evaluations in MD) 44.44%
20
40.00%
18
11.11%
5
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
45 3.24
29. Understand the PARCC Assessments 24.44%
11
20.00%
9
31.11%
14
17.78%
8
6.67%
3
45 2.55
30. Develop your own Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) 28.89%
13
31.11%
14
22.22%
10
15.56%
7
2.22%
1
45 2.75

When asked to describe their strengths, teacher candidate offered comments such as the following:

  • Creating positive relationships with students and integrating a variety of informal and formal assessments to continuously gauge students' understanding, and the ability to create meaningful, engaging activities to meet the diverse learning needs and styles of all students.
  • *Developing relationships with the students and taking vested interest in them as individuals. *Understanding and implementing content standards *Being flexible with the schedule and the lesson plan based on the needs of the class *Meeting the needs of all learners by providing differentiated instruction and addressing different learning styles *Ability to self-reflect on lessons and areas of improvement. *encouraging critical thinking in students and HOTS.
  • My areas of strength include early childhood education, giving accommodations to those in need, redirection, teaching lessons and changing at the last minute if needed, communicating with parents and students, diffusing problems/situations between students, conducting myself in a professional manner at all times, time management, classroom management, gaining and giving respect, and implementing lessons that align with CCSS.
  • One of my biggest strengths is meaningful use of technology. I was able to encourage my first mentor teacher to use Google Classroom more effectively in her day-to-day lessons, and the students enjoyed my lesson by completing a HyperDoc (Google Docs).
  • I have a grasp on effective questioning skills that encourage my students to use higher-level thinking skills. I maintain a respectful and positive repoire with my students. I am able to align my lessons to Common Core and Maryland State Standards. I incorporate and use various forms of technology for instruction, assessment, and data review and collection.
  • I feel that I have greatly improved my classroom management techniques. This is something that is hard to get a grasp on while taking classes. The internship experience was very beneficial for practicing and adjusting my own techniques while having the support of my mentor teacher.
  • Classroom management and developing/maintaining a respectful and healthy classroom environment.
  • Multi-tasking multiple schools with diligence. The ability to be flexible. Maintaining records. The ability to deal effectively with multiple administrations and teaches. Maintain communication with teachers to stay aligned with classroom lessons. Development of a safe learning environment where students feel comfortable communicating and learning. Creating rigorous lessons that are aligned with common core standards.
  • I have learned a ton about language learning--both theory and methods--from my classes at NDMU, and I have been able to put the theory into action in my lessons. I think that I have learned how to be creative in terms of addressing all four language domains within each lesson.
  • I believe I can make students feel comfortable to ask question during class in front of their classmates. I believe every question is worth an answer. In addition, I strongly believe students who ask questions are extremely brave and ask questions others are afraid to ask. In other word, the brave students are also assisting everyone in the class. Even if the material may be clear to most, review of the material can be good for all students.

When asked how they have made an impact on student learning, the teacher candidates noted demonstrating NDMU’s efforts to comply with CAEP standard 4 (Component 4.1 regarding Impact on P-12 learning and development):

  • I have effectively impacted my students through my lessons by tailoring them to the students' specific needs and teaching them in an effective manner. I have measured this through their feedback, pre-/post-tests, and projects based on the lesson.
  • I believe I impacted the learning of my students by demonstrating my own enthusiasm for learning and desire for each student to succeed within my instruction. I think by really taking the time to learn more about my students' interests and experiences to make the content relatable and demonstrate the real world application has really helped my students grasp the content and skills in a meaningful way. I measured my students learning frequently through both informal and formal assessments whether through observation, as I consistently circulate around the room during instruction, or through various written and oral assessments, such as with quick writes or turn and talks, for example, during instruction with an exit ticket or summative assessment at the end as a more formal assessment. By having a variety of ways to assess students' learning, I am able to identify strengths and areas of need for each student and for the class as a whole.
  • I care about my students even if only there for a short while. I develop relationships with my students and they know I care about them personally as well about them as students. I spend time sharing myself and my experiences with the students. I believe in bringing context to learning. Content is not isolated information. Linking authentic experiences to content gives meaning to it. I love having students link their experiences to learning as well. I love having active learning moments, like a project based learning style to engage learning through doing. Student learning was measured through FA, observations, anecdotal records, discourse, graded work. Multiple opportunities to reveal the holistic student.
  • I measured learning through assessments and interviews mostly. With one student I sat with him discussing reading activities to help him improve/work on his reading comprehension goal and as a reflection his assessment grades related to comprehension increased. I also worked with a few students with algebra comprehension, they were visually more comfortable participating in class and showed an increased in assessment data too.
  • A teacher who has observed me during my second placement told me "You're good. You teach your students as a friend, while still maintaining a respectful and professional relationship." I would agree with this statement. Through formative assessments and summative assessments (put together with my mentor teachers), I have been able to effectively measure my students' learning and growth.
  • Many of my students made huge growth academically as seen in their CCSS classroom assessments. In addition, I noticed growth in smaller increments in their 4 domains of language, and applauded their little successes like grammar skills we worked on and reading abilities (as noted in formative assessments) as well as large accomplishments like PBAs and the noticeable differences in their writing skills seen in writing journals.
  • I measured my students learning by using Kahoot as review and/or exit tickets. I hope I influenced students to at least not dislike math. My students appeared to not regret being in class and some even appeared excited to be there.
  • I believe I impacted the learning of my students by differentiating my lessons to suit my students' needs. By differentiating and using different teaching strategies, such as direct instruction, student-led instruction, small groups, etc, I saw an improvement in students' assessment. Not only did I see students improve with assessments, students were able to explain their work and explain to the class the steps to solve these problems.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Notwithstanding a very small ‘N’ in fall 2018, the spring 2018 and spring 2019 data were, for the most part, comparable. A few items fluctuated. For example, criterion #31 “Develop your own SLOs” had a mean score of 3.3 in 2019 but only a 2.75 in 2018. We can attribute this increase, in part, to a greater focus on the action research component which is often integrated into the mentor teacher’s personal “Student Learning Objectives.” Another variation was found in criterion # 30 “Understand the PARCC Assessments” resulting in a mean score of 2.55. This language was changed on the 2019 spring survey because we realized that not all teacher candidates are responsible for preparing for the PARCC assessments. However, they must be familiar with “standardized assessments” in general. Thus the mean score jumped to 3.10. A similar increase in “classroom Management” could be attributed to the newly developed GoogleDocs Resource Center on classroom management and a stronger emphasis on these strategies in several courses.
  2. The entire range of median scores was a low of 3.07 (parent connections) to a high of 3.74 (creating a respectful environment) in spring 2019; in spring 2018, the range was from a low of 2.75 (SLOs) to a high of 3.78 (creating a respectful environment).
  3. The quality of narrative comments seems to have improved, especially with respect to teacher candidates noting how they have impacted student achievement. This may have resulted from asking candidates to offer an example of how they have done so. The breadth of responses was very insightful as well, ranging from how they documented these improvements on a daily basis with 'exit tickets' to how they did so using formative and summative assessments; some provided insights into how a group of students improved while others offered a single student as an example. Action research has also helped to provide a meaningful tool by which teacher candidates can more readily plan for and assess this growth in student achievement.

E. Employment Status of Completers for Initial Certification

Based on direct reporting from 2017-2018 graduates of the School of Education who were deemed eligible for their initial teaching certification, the following chart depicts the employment status of these candidates as compared to data gathered in 2013-2014. These data document a significant first employment milestone for our program completers in compliance with CAEP standard 4 Component 4.3/A.4.1) as well as Outcome #7 for Component 5.4/A5.4.

Year of program completion 2013-2014 2017-2018
Total number of completers* 212 154
Employed in a position for which they were prepared 169 (80%) 137 (88.9%)
Employed in an education position outside of their preparation 17 (7%) 3 (2%)
Enrolled in higher education 2 (1%) 1 (.006%)
Employed outside of the education field 2 (1%) 1 (.006%)
Not Employed 4 (2%) 0
Unknown 21 (9%) 7 (4.5%)

These completers from 2013-2014 and 2017-2018, respectively, are now employed in the field of education accordingly:

Maryland Public Schools 2013-2014 2017-2018

Anne Arundel County Public Schools

20 14

Baltimore City Public Schools

14 7

Baltimore County Public Schools

25 20

Calvert County Public Schools

1 0

Carroll County Public Schools

2 0

Cecil County Public Schools

1 0

Charles County Public Schools

6 2

Dorchester County Public Schools

0 1

Frederick County Public Schools

1 0

Harford County Public Schools

9 7

Howard County Public Schools

5 2

Montgomery County Public Schools

0 1

Prince Georges County Public Schools

4 0

Queen Anne’s County Public Schools

0 1

St. Mary’s County Public Schools

3 6

Talbot County Public Schools

0 1

Washington County Public Schools

1 0

Maryland Private, Parochial and Independent Schools

Archdiocese & Other Catholic Schools

71 1

Private and Independent

12 1

Out-of-State and Country

2013-2014 1 Each in Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia, and 2 in Delaware. 2017-2018 1 each in Pennsylvania, Washington, Washington, D.C., Texas, and 2 in California.

8 6

TOTAL

166 154

Starting Salaries –Starting salaries* for new educators in Maryland vary from school district to school district based on the negotiated agreements and upon the credentials that new educators possess. The following links http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DCAA/SSP/20132014Staff/2014ProSalarySchedule.pdf and http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DCAA/SSP/20172018Staff/20172018SalarySchedules.pdf provide access to the recently published reports for educator salaries in 2013-2014 AND 2017-2018, respectively. For a new educator with a bachelor’s degree, the lowest beginning salary was in Carroll County at $40,400 and the highest was $47,475 in Baltimore City. In 2017-2018, the lowest beginning salary was $42,370 in Dorchester County and the highest was in Montgomery County at $49,013. In 2013-2014 with a master’s degree, one could start in Garrett County at $67,920 or earn as much as $98,905 in Montgomery County; in 2017-2018, the lowest was $60,503 in Baltimore City and highest was $106,543 in Montgomery County.

*ALSO NOTE THESE ADDITIONAL SALARIED BENEFITS: An additional $1,000 to $3000 for teachers who earned certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was made available in several school districts. The Maryland State Department of Education also contributes a stipend of up to $2,000 a year as a dollar-for-dollar match to local school systems for teachers who earn NBPTS certification and who teach in a school identified by the State Board of Education as having comprehensive needs. A stipend up to $1,000 is available for teachers who earn NBPTS certification and who teach in a school other than a comprehensive needs school. A $1,500 stipend is available for classroom teachers who hold an Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) and work in schools identified by the State Board of Education as having comprehensive needs. Teachers must also have a satisfactory performance rating.

F. Satisfaction of Employers

Assessment Collaborative Formation and 2016-17 Initiative
In the fall of 2016, fifteen institutions in the state of Maryland formed the Assessment Collaborative, to discuss and design new employer surveys. The Collaborative decided that items for the employer survey should align not only with InTASC standards but also with the Charlotte Danielson model used by Maryland school systems to evaluate teacher performance. Maryland Institutions are challenged to locate employers of recent initial certification graduates because the State of Maryland cannot provide the data. The Collaborative reviewed surveys from various institutions and decided upon a four-point system defined as …The beginning teacher demonstrates [the behavior] “Consistently,” “Inconsistently,” “Minimally,” and “Not at all” with no rating for “Not able to Observe.”

Although not necessary for employer surveys, the Collaborative decided to use the Lawshe formula to establish content validity for the 9 items. With positive Content Validity Ratios (CVR) for all items for all respondents, the Collaborative decided to include all items in the Employer Survey. This produced an Employer Survey with a Content Validity Index of .723, well within the range of declaring the employer survey a valid assessment instrument.

In Year One, five Institutions contributed data from 46 employers responding to the survey items about 2016-2017 grads who were employed by them as new educators in 2017-2018. Data were gathered again in Year Two on 2017-2018 completers; these results suggest that employers are exceptionally pleased with the graduates of Notre Dame of Maryland University. Data for the first year (albeit an overall low N) show that NDMU excelled when compared to the aggregate of other teacher preparation programs in Maryland (these data are not included in this report). Data from the other universities for year two have not yet been obtained. Below are the results for NDMU based on the surveys administered in June 2018 and June 2019.

Employer Survey
  NDMU 2019 N=18 (2017-18 Grads)* NDMU 2018 N=9 (2016-17 Grads)**
This beginning teacher… Mean Mode Median Mean Mode Median
1. understands the diverse needs of students 3.67 4 4 4.00 4 4
2. plans for the diverse needs of students. 3.61 4 4 3.78 4 4
3. knows the required content. 3.72 4 4 NA NA NA
4. effectively teaches required content. 3.50 4 4 4.00 4 4
5. creates a respectful environment that supports learning for all students. 3.67 4 4 4.00 4 4
6. implements effective instruction that engages students in learning. 3.67 4 4 4.00 4 4
7. implements a range of assessments to measure the progress of learners to improve instruction. 3.50 4 4 4.00 4 4
8. demonstrates professionalism. 3.83 4 4 4.00 4 4
9. uses technology in ways that improve student learning. 3.83 4 4 3.89 4 4
10. positively impacts student growth*** 3.67 4 4 NA NA NA

*N of 18 = 38% (18 of 46 employer respondents participated)
**N of 9 = 38% (9 of 24 employer respondents participated)
***NDMU opted to add criterion #10 to the survey as one additional strategy to assess how new educators impact P-12 achievement.

Additional comments offered by the employers included the following from 2019 and 2018, respectively. A common theme for improvement resides in classroom management strategies. While teacher candidates receive high scores for creating a respectful learning environment, nonetheless they still need more experience with classroom management. Although scores have improved over time (due to a greater focus on classroom management strategies in coursework and the new Google Docs resource center), there appears to be no substitute for experience.

Comments from 2019 Survey:

What are the areas of strength of your new teacher?
  • The student teacher is creative and brings a high level of professionalism to her new teacher role.
  • Excellent rapport established with her students, parents and faculty.
  • Reflective, perseverance, collaborative.
  • Developed very positive relationships with students and remained flexible. She also quickly engaged in extracurricular activities such as the school newspaper.
  • Diversity, instruction and assessment
  • friendly and approachable.
  • classroom management working with a team following curriculum
  • Implementation of instruction
  • brings a deep dedication to finding the "Next Best Plan" to grow student performance and success. She is engaged in discovering her active role in that process and is constantly questioning and learning to make that happen.
  • She is a hard worker and put in the time to meet with others in order to grow as a teacher.
  • Dependability -Communication -reflecting on teaching practices
  • Professional, calm, fair.
  • She is confident and always prepared. She fit right in with her grade level team. She is open to feedback and seeks discussions to improve teaching.
  • Classroom management was an area that stood out the past year. She had a rough group of 4tb grade students and managed her classroom with respect and efficiency.
  • She is flexible and open to suggestions.
  • She is well-planned and prepared
  • She is positive, professional, and able to adapt.
  • Her ability to be collaborative with her team mates.
What areas for improvement do you think need further development for your new teacher?
  • Like all new educators, the student teacher needs to continue their grow to become a master educator.
  • Over time, she needs to improve her familiarity with the county curriculum to be taught
  • Continuing to set goals for students and utilizing assessment data to guide instruction and support.
  • Classroom management Planning and implementing instruction Differentiating instruction for all learners
  • differentiating for the gifted learner using data to drive instruction Teaching guided reading Administration and scoring of F&P benchmarks
  • Just experience. She is still a new teacher and is working ever day to deepen her repertoire of tools, strategies and approaches to helping students succeed.
  • -consistency with implementing technology and preparation of students for PAARC -differentiation and targeted small group instruction
  • Classroom management and assertiveness in the classroom.
  • on a good path - she was rated as an effective teacher for her first year and I am confident that she will continue to develop into a highly effective teacher.
  • Curriculum and depth of instruction. This will come with experience. She did very well for her first year
  • More structure for instructional blocks.
  • As she grows and develops within her career, I would like to see her become more assertive with her students in implementing her classroom expectations.
  • Behavior management.
Please explain how this new teacher has impacted student growth.
  • The student teacher brought new ideas and current techniques that positively impacted the students.
  • She targeted students with identified needs and generated individual plans to support their progress and kept parents engaged and informed
  • The teacher cared for her students first and foremost. She sought out feedback as it was needed, and made adjustments each time it was offered.
  • She focused on student growth and worked to support each student based on their needs.
  • She has been awesome. She truly understands student needs.
  • This teacher is a career changer who has raised her own children, and came to the classroom with more life experience than many new educators. Her classroom climate and ability to manage student behavior was a strength, and enabled her to teach content effectively, which positively impacted student growth.
  • She was able to use student assessment (informal & formal) data to make solid instructional decisions.
  • She has impacted student growth through hard work, a deeply engaged attitude and approach to her profession, and by working in collaboration with her colleagues to discover the needs and strengths of students and encourage them academically and socially-emotionally to meet the highest standards.
  • Her desire to teach and the care she has for students came through and was well received by her students.
  • She worked very hard and was very dependable. She is working hard to consistently impact student growth.
  • Careful planning and a willingness to learn has resulted in student academic growth. Students have improved in math fact fluency and in the area of reading fluency/comprehension
  • Students made progress in her classroom. F&P results showed progress. She was able to jump right in and teach based on the Guided Reading Model. Through running records and conferencing with students, she was able to identify skills students need to grow their reading. In Math, students were appropriately challenged and had good success developing number sense.
  • She was prepared to plan and provide instruction for her students. She worked collaboratively with her team.
  • She has helped several new students get set up and established at our school. She has developed parent relationships.
  • She has differentiated instruction to meet student needs
  • Her ability to offer diverse lessons that meet individual student's needs helped to foster growth within her classroom.
  • She formed great relationships with students and parents.

Comments from 2018 Survey:

What are the areas of strength of your new teacher?
  • Understanding the IEP process
  • Had a very challenging schedule which he handled very well. He was willing to work hard and consult others to support students.
  • Our teacher has many strengths! She is well prepared and organized. She always makes decisions in the best interest of students. She is a strong first year teacher.
  • Management of students
  • Planning, instruction, relationships with students and staff
  • Organization of resources and planning of lessons.
  • Well prepared and positive attitude
  • extremely motivated, self-driven and reflective.
  • Planning, positive relationship building, and behavior management
What areas for improvement do you think need further development for your new teacher?
  • Technology use
  • He sometimes shows a lack of confidence in his own abilities. However, you could see his confidence grow during the year.
  • The area of special education is an area that students need to be well versed in. Students are coming to schools with complex needs these days. Behavioral supports beyond PBIS is a great need for all first year teachers along with classroom management
  • Depth of content knowledge in math
  • If special education is the focus, how to effectively use support staff
  • Patience and knowing that there will be days when your best isn’t good enough
  • receives all feedback well and immediately implements suggestions and strategies offered.
  • Our curriculum is changing, so learning the new curriculum.
Other Helpful Information about Accreditation Outcomes

A. Date of Last Review: February 24-26, 2013

B. The following six areas of strength were documented by the Board of Examiners during the February 2013 on-site visitations:

  • "SoE training (course offerings, workshops, etc.) for PreK-12 faculty is timely, PreK-12 school needs-focused, and effective"
  • "Multiple stakeholders note that interns come to the clinical experience with competencies valuable to the PreK-12 facility in the delivery of instruction, professional development in technology, and support for school improvement plan efforts. Principals, specifically, note interns and new teachers come to their schools with skills beyond those held by current practitioners. SoE alumni are exceptionally well prepared for their positions in the PreK-12 community."
  • "Integration of the MTTS standards throughout program course work and assessments ensures candidate proficiency in the use of instructional and productivity technology."
  • "The unit is commended on the quality of its faculty as well as the faculty's scholarly agenda."
  • "The SoE Handbook provides extensive information for the unit faculty and external stakeholders concerning the programs, expectations, and policies used to conduct school activities. Interviews with multiple groups attest to the amount of valuable information provided by this reference manual."
  • "The unit and university have established a strong sense of community that is evident to anyone visiting NDMU for more then a few hours. This environment is an intentional extension of its mission, conceptual framework, and school values. The unit lives its mission."

C. Two areas for improvement were noted by the Board of Examiners:

  • "There is no systematic mechanism to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide feedback on unit operations. (ITP, ADV). Employers, school-based personnel, and candidates do not provide summative feedback on a regular, systematic, and consistent basis."
  • "The unit does not maintain the minimum number of interns at each PDS required by state standards. (ITP) There are fewer than five (5) interns placed in some PDS schools."

D. Notre Dame of Maryland University's School of Education is addressing these two areas for improvement as follows:

The SOE uses a variety of surveys to elicit feedback from its many stakeholders. Each of these surveys has been modified to include a question(s) pertinent to the unit's operations; e.g., in the survey of mentor teachers regarding the performance of candidates, the SoE asks these open-ended questions: "Please identify any kudos or concerns that you might have regarding the operational effectiveness of the School of Education with respect to the assigning and/or preparation of interns" and "Please provide and additional comments that you believe are beneficial to the enhancement of the teacher preparation program provided by Notre Dame of Maryland University."  A new survey instrument to PDS-based personnel was designed to generate added information from these stakeholders as to how the SoE can improve its services.  In addition to these revised and new survey instruments, stakeholder forums have been held; and half-day seminars for interns to engage in reflective feedback are now held.

Notwithstanding many strong convictions that are diametrically opposed to this expectation to house five candidates each semester at each PDS site, the SoE has taken several necessary steps to move toward full compliance:

  • by severing its long-standing relationship with three PDS sites to better ensure that we attain the minimum number of interns at each of the remaining sites;
  • by hiring a new field placement coordinator;
  • by modifying the language on the field placement request form, allowing the candidate only 1 of 2 preferences for placement (instead of 2 of 2)
  • by tracking our placement data in a more methodical manner;
  • by conducting an internal research-based assessment of teacher candidate placements to ascertain the extent to which the ‘critical mass’ of 5 has a significant impact on the candidate and his/her experience with respect to Maryland's PDS standards.

E. Schools/Districts in Partnership with NDMU's School of Education:  The SoE maintains active partnerships with Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Harford County, and the Archdiocese of Baltimore.  These five partnerships support the following Professional Development Schools (PDS) and sites where students engage in field and internship experiences.  They include:

Anne Arundel County Public Schools

  • Arnold Elementary
  • Belvedere Elementary
  • Lothian Elementary
  • Severn River Middle
  • Broadneck High

Baltimore City Public Schools

  • John Ruhrah Elementary/Middle
  • Medfield Heights Elementary
  • Western High School

Baltimore County Public Schools

  • Oakleigh Elementary
  • Hillcrest Elementary
  • Johnnycake Elementary
  • Stemmers Run Middle
  • Kenwood High
  • Woodlawn High

Harford County Public Schools

  • Church Creek Elementary
  • Forest Hill Elementary Hill H
  • Aberdeen High/Middle
  • G. Lisby-Hillsdale Elementary

Archdiocese of Baltimore

  • Mother Seton Academy
  • St. Thomas Aquinas

F. Date of Next On-Site Visit: 2020

A Description of Our Institution

History of Innovation

Notre Dame of Maryland University has a proud history of serving as a catalytic change agent. Originally conceived in 1847 (and formally founded in 1873) to educate those neglected by society, poor girls and women, this innovative school evolved from a K-12 institution and became the first women’s Catholic college in the United States to award a four-year baccalaureate degree. Later it was recognized that women over the age of 25 could benefit from a four-year degree and the school expanded to meet this need. Subsequently a weekend college was established to serve the needs of employed students. Demands for a graduate school lead to both the development of several master’s degree programs and to the first Accelerated College for working professionals, both women and men. Mirroring the diversity of our society and our school, English as a second language and American culture classes also bring an international dimension to the Notre Dame of Maryland University campus. Another innovation, the Renaissance Institute (a noncredit membership program for students age 50 and older) rounds out the University’s high-impact educational offerings, thus meeting the diverse needs of yet another underserved population by emphasizing professional and personal knowledge, development, and integrity. The final jewel in this crown of pioneering change has been the successful development of the first doctoral program, a Ph.D. in Instructional Leadership for Changing Populations. Thus, Notre Dame of Maryland University continues its evolutionary (and sometimes revolutionary) pathway and mission to educate leaders to transform the world by providing “Distinctive undergraduate and graduate programs [that] challenge women and men to strive for intellectual and professional excellence, to build inclusive communities, to engage in service to others and to promote social responsibility.”

Diversity

Nowhere is this mission more evident or vibrant than in the School of Education’s undergraduate and graduate programs where one-third of the students are people of color. This extremely rich cultural, racial and ethnic diversity reflects a strong foundational belief in meeting the needs of those who are underserved. Neither gender, race, age or religious affiliation serves as a barrier in our effort to transform the world. Notre Dame of Maryland University students and faculty members come from a variety of backgrounds, bringing diverse perspectives to the academic community. The University is known for its student-centered orientation and for its faculty commitment to superior teaching and scholarship. Undergraduate and graduate students are challenged by a team of university professors who represent a full range of experiences; of 20 full-time faculty members in the School of Education, over 80% are former P-12 school teachers, principals and superintendents who have served as leaders in our nation’s urban schools. Others have been leaders in their respective fields; e.g., in brain research, school reform, special education instruction, middle school programming, curricular design, Reading research, etc). Equally important is the depth and breadth of associate faculty (approximately 40), all of whom currently serve or have retired from positions as educators in P-12 school settings. Thus, they are keenly familiar with the multiplicity of challenges which confront new teachers; yet they are also cognizant of the plethora of instructional and curricular tools that can be effectively utilized to positively impact student achievement and promote the retention of new educators in the workforce. Indeed, to accommodate cohorts of students, many of the courses are taught off-site in satellite centers/schools, thus bringing the faculty closer to the real-world teaching environment. Therefore, our teacher candidates are ensured of being well grounded in theoretical frameworks but are equally certain to acquire the requisite practical skills needed to be successful in the classroom. 

School Sisters of Notre Dame (SSND)

Yet another integral part of these successful teacher preparation programs, and many would posit is the backbone of this institution, is the School Sisters of Notre Dame (SSND). The SSND congregation continues to inform and inspire the education provided at the University, with more than twenty sisters serving on the faculty, staff, or administration and seven serving as trustees.  No less than six serve within the School of Education. The Catholic tradition of the University provides the context by which intellectual dialogue is actively promoted. The SSND mission is the guiding principle of campus life: education should “empower persons to reach the fullness of their potential and enable them to direct their gifts toward building the earth.” The University’s values-centered education and high academic standards emphasize the student’s total development: intellectual, professional, social and spiritual.