2008 report on the preparation of new teachers by University System of Georgia institutions [Mar. 15, 2009]

2008 Report on the Preparation of New Teachers by University System of Georgia Institutions
March 15, 2009 Department of P-16 Initiatives
"Creating a More Educated Georgia" www.usg.edu

Foreword

The University System of Georgia (USG) is committed to producing quality teachers to work in Georgia's K-12 schools; and, although there is much work to be done, we have made great strides in our efforts. New data technology has given us the ability to track the number of graduates, the rates they enter the classrooms as newly certified teachers, and their retention in Georgia public schools. And the numbers are impressive.

The successes in teacher recruitment, preparation and retention are due in no small part to the strength of USG as a whole and the individual talents and expertise of the faculty and staff throughout our colleges and universities. As the need for more qualified teachers has grown, especially in selected areas such as science and mathematics, the USG has responded strongly and strategically. Three additional institutions began new teacher preparation programs in 2008; institutions with established teacher preparation developed innovative program delivery models; and online teaching degrees were launched through USG's GeorgiaONmyLINE.

Dr. Lynne Weisenbach Vice Chancellor, Department of P-16 Initiatives

Also notable was the launch of the "20,000 by 2020" Initiative, with the goal of meeting 80% of the State's need for teachers by the year 2020. Likewise, the USG STEM Initiative, which includes preparing math and science teachers at all grade levels, directly addresses Georgia's current and future teacher needs.

I joined the USG staff in 2008 to lead the System's teacher preparation efforts and I can't imagine a more exciting or challenging time to do this work. I share the information contained in this report with pride and appreciation for the work accomplished and confidence in meeting the challenges ahead.

i

Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................i
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1
List and Map of Teacher Preparation Institutions ............................................................2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
USG Increases Number of Teacher Preparation Programs and Graduates More USG Institutions Add Teacher Preparation Programs ...............................4 New Teacher Production.......................................................................................4 Preparation of Minority Teachers .........................................................................5 New Teacher Production by Preparation Route ...................................................6 Preparation Routes of Minority Teachers ............................................................6 Areas of Preparation .............................................................................................7
USG Quality Translates into More Teachers in the Classrooms, Higher Retention Rates and High Customer Satisfaction
Yield Rates ...........................................................................................................9 Institutional Highlights .........................................................................................9 Teacher Distribution .............................................................................................11 Teacher Retention .................................................................................................11 Teacher Retention/One-Year Rates ......................................................................12 Teacher Retention/Two-Year Comparison ...........................................................12 USG Employer Survey/K-12 School Administrators .........................................13 USG Graduate Survey ..........................................................................................14 USG Prepared Teachers' Ratings of Institutions .................................................15
USG's System-Wide Strategies Support Teacher Preparation Efforts with Positive Results.................................................................................................................16 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................16
APPENDICES
Appendix A: University System of Georgia Teacher Preparation Institutions ................17 Appendix B: Regents' Principles for the Preparation of Teachers for the Schools..........19 Appendix C: Data Profiles
Total New Teacher Production .............................................................................20 Minority Teacher Production................................................................................201 Percentage of Minority Teacher Production by Institution...................................21 Appendix D: Distribution of 2007 New USG Prepared Teachers in 2008 Georgia Classrooms ........................................................................................................................232 Appendix E: USG Board of Regents Surveys ..................................................................254

ii

iii

2008 Report on the Preparation of New Teachers by University System of Georgia Institutions
Executive Summary
The 2008 Annual Report on the Preparation of New Teachers by University System of Georgia Institutions provides a wealth of impressive data about the way that universities across the state are changing, collaborating, and succeeding in meeting increasing demands for high quality teachers for Georgia's P-12 schools. These efforts are supported by the P-16 Department of the Board of Regents. Highlights include:
Producing a high quantity of teachers In 2008, 22 USG institutions had teacher preparation programs open or under development. USG institutions produced 4,236 teachers in 2008, an increase of 11% from 2007. This is among the highest increases in the country and was accomplished even in times of budget constraints. The USG has produced nearly 25,000 teachers since 2002. Our commitment to ensuring a diverse workforce is evidenced by a 31% increase in minority (non-white) teachers between 2007 and 2008. Again, this is among the highest increases in the country.
Producing quality teachers Numbers alone do not tell the story and are meaningless unless the teachers have the knowledge, skills, and beliefs necessary to affect student learning.
The overwhelming majority of USG-prepared teachers were hired immediately upon completion of their programs--79% of the 2007 graduating class entered the next fall.
98% of school administrators hiring USG graduates would recommend to their peers, the USG institution which prepared their teachers.
99% of USG-prepared teachers agree that they are prepared to plan and carry out instruction and programs based on knowledge of state and district performance standards.
The two-year retention rate for USG graduates is 89% versus 76% for non-USG graduates.
Using effective strategies to meet demand Effective system-wide strategies were deployed.
The "20,000 by 2020" Initiative was implemented to meet present and future State demands for teachers.
A new online alternative program to prepare mathematics and science teachers was developed in 2008.
The Destination Teaching website, which provides a "one stop shop" for prospective teachers, had more than 2 million hits in 2008.
Online teacher preparation programs offered through GeorgiaONmyLINE targeted and reached an expanded market for teachers, such as career changers.

iv

1

USG Institutions with Teacher Preparation Programs
Institutions with operating teacher preparation programs Albany State University Armstrong Atlantic State University Augusta State University Clayton State University Columbus State University Dalton State College Fort Valley State University Gainesville State College Georgia College & State University Georgia Southern University Georgia Southwestern State University Georgia State University Gordon College Kennesaw State University Macon State College North Georgia College & State University University of Georgia University of West Georgia Valdosta State University
Institutions with programs under development College of Coastal Georgia Georgia Gwinnett College Middle Georgia College
2

Introduction
Georgia, like the nation, is faced with a challenge of changing the way education is delivered so that all children graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in postsecondary education and the world of work in a 21st century "flat world."
The "flat world" rewards continuous learning, teamwork, and the ability to adapt quickly to change. Georgia's schools need teachers who know how to create learning cultures that foster the acquisition of knowledge and the communication and innovative problem solving abilities students will use throughout their lives.
We know that educator preparation is one part of an overall statewide strategy to transform the way educational systems operate in the state. The University System of Georgia, as part of the Alliance of Education Agency Heads, works collaboratively to ensure all students have the educational opportunities they deserve and need.
The issues are complex; the University System of Georgia has played and will continue to play a vital role in addressing issues of teacher shortages. Roughly one third of the teacher workforce is composed of Baby Boomers. For decades they have been at the core of our public education enterprise and as a society we have relied on them to deliver a quality education. Now they are ready to retire, just as Georgia's growing population of students is becoming increasingly diverse.
Current data indicate that the two-year retention rate for USG prepared teachers is 89% compared to 76% for non-USG graduates. This translates to millions of dollars in replacement cost savings for the state. Additionally, the Board of Regents has made a bold commitment to meet 80% of the state's need for teachers by 2020 through the "20,000 by 2020" Initiative. This will increase university involvement in the recreation of schools into 21st century learning organizations that support the induction/retention of new teachers, as well as the increased production of new teachers, especially in high need content areas such as mathematics and sciences, and geographic regions of the state. Our colleges and universities have already made dramatic changes with impressive results. The production has increased 58% in the last seven years, and the number of minority teachers moving into the teaching force from USG institutions grew from 702 in 2007 to 925 in 2008, an impressive 31% increase in one year.
The University System of Georgia, through the P-16 Department, and our colleges and universities, remains deeply committed to the notion that teachers are professionals whose preparation, practice, and career advancement are seamlessly aligned around a cohesive knowledge base that is focused on student learning.
This is the second annual report on the status of educator preparation at USG institutions. This report provides a rich summary highlighting progress toward addressing 1) quantity of teacher production; 2) quality of graduates from USG teacher preparation institutions; 3) innovative USG system-wide initiatives to recruit students into teaching and USG's commitment to meet 80% of the need for teachers in Georgia by 2020.
3

USG Increases Number of Teacher Preparation Programs and Graduates
More USG Institutions Add Educator Preparation Programs
Through 2008, seventeen USG institutions1 had students completing educator preparation programs. All of these institutions have initial teacher preparation programs. Fourteen of the fifteen have advanced teacher preparation programs. Eleven institutions have educational leadership programs and eight have school counselor preparation programs. Additionally, six institutions have programs preparing educators in other service-oriented capacities (e.g., school psychologists, speech / language pathologists).
Since 2004, the Board of Regents has added educator preparation to the missions of seven institutions. These are listed below.
2004: Dalton State College 2005: Georgia Gwinnett College and Macon State College 2006: Gainesville State College and Gordon College 2008: College of Coastal Georgia and Middle Georgia College
New Teacher Production2
The addition of new teacher preparation programs, coupled with the continued high production of existing programs, has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of teachers prepared and hired to work in Georgia classrooms. USG institutions produced 4,236 new teachers in 2008, an increase of 11% from 2007. USG institutions have increased new teacher production 59% since 2002, when the Regents'
Principles for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools went into effect. (Figure 1) Figure 1: Number of New Teachers Produced at USG Institutions
1 Albany State University, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Augusta State University, Clayton State University, Columbus State University, Dalton State College, Fort Valley State University, Georgia College & State University, Georgia Southern University, Georgia Southwestern State University, Georgia State University, Kennesaw State University, Macon State College, North Georgia College & State University, University of Georgia, University of West Georgia, Valdosta State University. 2 The annual new teacher production totals are based on data submitted by the P-16 Department's submission deadline of August 2008.
4

The University System has produced 24,942 teachers since 2002 when the Regents' Principles and Actions for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools (Appendix B) went into effect.
Seventeen USG institutions prepared teachers through 2008. The 2008 cohort of new teachers included, for the first time, graduates from Dalton State College and Macon State College. These two institutions contributed 2.5% of the total USG production.
The two highest producing institutions in 2008 were The University of Georgia (568) and Kennesaw State University (558). These institutions contributed 13.4% and 13.2% of the total USG new teacher production (Appendix C). Together, these two institutions produced approximately 1 in 4 (26.4%) of newly prepared USG teachers.
Preparation of minority teachers3
The production of minority teachers continues to rise (Figure 2) and by percentage has outpaced the production of new teachers overall.
USG institutions produced 31% more minority teachers in 2008 than in 2007 and 54% more than in 2004.
In 2007, 18% (702) of new USG-prepared teachers were non-white; in 2008, 22% (925) of new USG-prepared teachers were non-white. See Appendix C.
Figure 2: Production of minority teachers from 2004 through 2008

number of teachers produced

100

90

80

70

60

601

50

40

30

20

10

0 2004

570 2005

745 2006

925 702

2007

2008

3 Minority production counts reflect the total number of newly prepared non-white USG program completers matched by the USG P-16 Data Warehouse.
5

New Teacher Production by Preparation Route
USG institutions offer programs to fit the needs of traditional undergraduate students as well as careerchangers. Thus, USG-prepared teachers may have entered the profession through either traditional or alternative preparation programs (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Traditional versus Alternative Preparation Routes

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

74.4% 25.6%

70.5% 29.5%

Traditional Alternative

The most popular route to becoming a teacher is still the traditional (undergraduate) route with 2,985 (71%) of new USG-prepared teachers completing baccalaureate certification programs.
USG institutions reported an increase in the total number of USG-prepared teachers that completed alternative-route programs, from 26% in 2007 to 30% in 2008.
o 786 (19%) completed graduate programs while earning a Master's degree (graduate initial certification programs).
o 465 (11%) completed graduate programs which provided only the courses needed for certification (post-baccalaureate certification-only programs).
o Career changers chose programs leading to a Master's degree almost two to one over certification-only programs.
Preparation Routes of USG-Prepared Minority Teachers
Alternative preparation routes are highly viable routes for minority candidates (Figure 4).
Based on 2008 data 57% of new USG minority teachers were prepared as undergraduates; 43% were prepared beyond the bachelor's level.
6

Figure 4: 2008 Preparation Routes by Minority and Non-Minority Students

Year 2008 2008

Preparation Route
Alternative
Traditional

NonMinority
852
2,459

Minority 399 526

Percent Minority

32% 18%

Six institutions reported at least 25% of total production consisted of minority teachers (Armstrong Atlantic State University, Albany State University, Augusta State University, Clayton State University, Georgia State University, and Fort Valley State University).

Areas of Preparation
USG institutions continue to prepare teachers in a very wide array of content areas. While USG institutions are working to meet the demand for high-need subject areas, shortages remain. As outlined in the subsequent "20,000 by 2020" section, aggressive steps are being taken to address this need.

The greatest percentages of newly prepared USG teachers received preparation in the area of Early Childhood/Elementary Education (37%), Special Education (14%), and Middle Grades Education (12%). As Figure 5 indicates, allocations have remained relatively consistent for the past three years (Figure 6).

Math and the Sciences, while relatively stable over time, are not meeting state needs, reflecting national data which indicate that a variety of strategies must be employed to impact shortages in STEM areas. These strategies include targeted preparation programs and differentiated pay.

Figure 5: Preparation Area as a Percent of Teacher Production



Year

2005 2006 2007 2008

7

Figure 6: Areas of Preparation

HS English

Agriculture/Business/ Trade/Industrial

Health/PE Other Specialty

HS Mathematics Foreign Languages
HS Science

Arts HS Social Sciences

Early Childhood/ Elementary

Middle Grades (Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences, English/ Language Arts, and
Reading)

Special Education

New USG-prepared teachers by preparation area: 2008

As part of completing a middle-grades teacher preparation program at USG institutions, students must select two areas of concentration. Figure 7 shows the distribution of concentrations for the teachers who completed middle-grades programs in 2007 and 2008.4

Figure 7: Distributions of Middle Grades Concentrations

Middle-Grades Concentrations Language Arts Concentrations Reading Concentrations Social Science Concentrations Mathematics Concentrations Science Concentrations

2007 200 Not reported 242 218 185

2008 215 18 226 192 186

4 Since middle grades teachers must complete two concentrations, each middle school teacher is counted in two categories. Just as many teachers are choosing concentrations in math and science as in other content areas.
8

USG Quality Translates into More Teachers in the Classrooms, Higher Retention Rates, and High Customer Satisfaction
Teachers prepared by USG institutions are highly sought after, especially by Georgia's public school systems. Through a proven track record, school systems are assured that USG-prepared teachers are a good investment.
The Board of Regents strongly supports the important mission of preparing high quality teachers for Georgia's public schools. In 1998 the Board of Regents approved the Regents' Principles and Actions for the Preparation of Teachers for the Schools. (Appendix B) The "Regents' Principles" set a standard of quality assurance, collaboration and responsiveness to school needs, to include raising the number of teachers prepared, raising the quality of teachers prepared, expanding the diversity of candidates and balancing supply and demand.
Yield Rates
USG teachers are prepared for teaching the Georgia curriculum (Georgia Performance Standards) and for teaching in Georgia schools. More often than not, these new teachers are Georgia residents who want to remain in Georgia. When these factors are added to the high quality preparation received at USG institutions, it should come as no surprise that USG-prepared teachers are hired by our state's school systems at a high rate.
The P-16 Department defines "yield rate" as the percentage of new USG-prepared teachers hired into the Georgia public school workforce the school year immediately following the year of program completion.5 Being hired to start the following school year is especially noteworthy since most new teachers complete their preparation programs in May and most employment contracts are signed by July. The overwhelming majority of USG-prepared teachers are hired immediately upon completion of their program.
The overall 2007 USG yield was 79%. The overall 2006 USG yield was 79%. The overall 2005 USG yield was 78%.
Institutional Highlights
Among the seventeen USG teacher preparation institutions, the percent of 2007 new USG-prepared teachers working in-state in the public school system in 2008 ranged from 66% to 100%. Nine of the seventeen institutions had 2008 yield rates of greater than 80%. As in previous years, institutions close to the state border show somewhat lower yield rates, which are attributable to these institutions' close proximity to Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Florida. These institutions often draw out-ofstate students who get their teacher preparation at a USG institution and then return to their home state to begin teaching. Similar distribution patterns were observed from 2007 to 2008. The yield rates from 2005-2008 are located in Appendix C.
5Annual yield rates are useful for providing institutions with realistic data regarding the percent of graduates who actually enter the teaching profession immediately following graduation or program completion. However, these rates do not reflect graduates who teach out of state or in private schools in Georgia.
9

Figure 8: 2007 Yield Rates for USG Prepared Teachers in 2007/2008 Workforce

Institution

2007 Production In 2007/2008 Workforce Yield

Albany State University Armstrong Atlantic State University Augusta State University Clayton State University Columbus State University Fort Valley State University Georgia College & State University Georgia Southern University Georgia Southwestern State University Georgia State University Kennesaw State University North Georgia College & State University University of Georgia University of West Georgia Valdosta State University USG

61 318 125 35 171 3 175 306 96 462 473 314 572 416 295 3822

46 256 96 26 112 3 143 254 77 375 383 250 398 352 239 3010

75.4% 80.5% 76.8% 74.3% 65.5% 100.0% 81.7% 83.0% 80.2% 81.2% 81.0% 79.6% 69.6% 84.6% 81.0% 78.8%

Yield rates at some institutions may show variations as institutions with new teacher preparation programs begin producing teachers (Figure 8). Often an established USG institution may partner with a new USG teacher preparation program during the start-up and accreditation process. North Georgia College and State University partnered with Gainesville State College and Macon State College while the University of West Georgia partnered with Dalton State College. All four new teacher preparation institutions began certifying their teachers in 2007 or 2008. As new teacher preparation programs go online, the pipeline of students preparing to be teachers becomes larger. Figure 9 provides data on the number of students entering their junior year for each of the new teacher education institutions and who in all likelihood will graduate the following year as new USG teachers. This figure illustrates the projected impact of these new preparation programs.

Figure 9: New Students in the Teacher Education Pipeline as Juniors at New Teacher Preparation Institutions

Institution

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Dalton State College

92

120

133

148

Macon State College

63

146

208

211

Gainesville State College

20

56

60

Gordon College

30

81

Note: For students to be counted they must have enrolled as a junior and completed the academic year.

10

Distribution of New USG-Prepared Teachers
School districts across the state hire USG-prepared graduates. USG graduates carry a guarantee of quality. Moreover, USG institutions prepare teachers in close partnership with Georgia's public schools. Many schools have worked with USG teachers as part of the preparation process and eagerly hire them once they have completed their programs.
Figure 10: Distribution of New 2007 USG-Prepared Teachers Teaching in Georgia's Public Schools in 2008
Retention Rates Two Years of Teacher Retention Data6
Data Mart technology and data resources from both USG educator preparation institutions and the Georgia Department of Education have enabled the Data Division of the USG P-16 Department to track retention rates of new USG-prepared teachers for two years. Because of the Data Mart tracking technology, the Division can also compare annual retention of new USG-prepared teachers to new non USG-prepared teachers in the State of Georgia, providing the public with additional evidence that hiring a USG-prepared teacher is a good investment for Georgia (Figure 10).
6 Rates provided specify 0 years of teaching experience. 11

Teacher Retention--One-Year Rates
For two years in a row, the one-year retention rate for USG teachers has remained very high at 95%, a substantially higher rate than for non-USG prepared teachers.
The 2006 cohort of USG-prepared teachers had a one-year retention rate of 95% compared with an 86% retention rate for non-USG prepared teachers (Figure 11).
The two-year retention rate for USG teachers prepared in 2005 is 90% vs. 76% for non-USG prepared teachers (Figure 12).

Figure 11: One-year Retention Rates for 2006 Cohort First-Time Teachers

2006 Cohort working

for first time as

Certified Teacher in

One Year Retention

Years of Experience = 0

School Year 2006-07 (Still working within State in 2007-08)

USG Institutional One Year Retention Rates

Institution

# Certified in 2006

# Employed One Year Later

Percentage

Albany State University

20

19

95.0

Armstrong Atlantic State University

97

87

89.7

Augusta State University

51

45

88.2

Clayton State University

23

22

95.7

Columbus State University

52

48

92.3

Fort Valley State University

18

17

94.4

Georgia College and State University

74

69

93.2

Georgia Southern University

208

200

96.2

Georgia Southwestern State University

36

36

100.0

Georgia State University

187

176

94.1

Kennesaw State University

284

267

94.0

North Georgia College & State University

117

113

96.6

University Of Georgia

259

241

93.1

University Of West Georgia

251

246

98.0

Valdosta State University

192

182

94.8

USG-Prepared Teachers

1869

1768

94.6

Non-USG-Prepared Teachers

6669

5736

86.0

Figure 12: Comparison of USG-Prepared Teachers who Remain in the Classroom for Two Years

versus Non-USG Prepared Teachers

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Teachers Remaining in the Classroom

95% 86%

89%

76%

Year one in the classroom

Year two in the classroom

USG-prepared Non USG-prepared

12

Customer Satisfaction
USG institutions that prepare teachers have established a solid reputation for producing well-prepared and highly qualified teachers. During the 2008 academic year, the results of two USG-administered surveys provided even further support. The USG Graduate Survey and USG Employer Survey (Appendix E) were administered on behalf of the Colleges of Education for the purpose of providing education faculty and administrators with meaningful feedback about the recent graduates of USG teacher preparation programs. Content areas within the surveys are aligned to the Georgia Framework for Teaching, which is the tool used to observe teacher candidates in field internships and in student teaching. The Georgia Framework for Teaching was adopted in 2005-06 by the Georgia Department of Education, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission, and the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (BOR) as the state definition of quality teaching.

The survey consisted of six categories or components associated with the delivery of an effective teacher preparation program: (1) Content and Curriculum; (2) Knowledge of Students, Teaching, and Learning; (3) Learning Environments; (4) Classroom, Program and School-Wide Assessment; (5) Planning and Instruction; and (6) Professionalism.

A total of 458 employers responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 33.6%. A total of 1309 graduates responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 53%.
Highlights from 2008 USG Employer Survey The results of the 2008 USG Employer Survey indicate that employers of USG-prepared teachers were very positive about teachers' first year teaching performance, their ability to create learning environments and manage a classroom (Figure 13), and their knowledge and ability to plan lessons and instruct students (Figure 14).

Figure 13: Perceptions of Employers in Preparedness in Knowledge of Learners, Teaching and

Learning

USG-prepared teachers are able to:

Employer

Percent of Agreement

Create learning environments that focus on engaging all

students in learning, collaboratively and individually.

93.9%

Manage time, space, activities, technology, and other resources

to provide active and equitable engagement of diverse students

and adults in productive tasks.

92.2%

Use knowledge about human motivation and behavior to

develop strategies for organizing and supporting learning.

93.0%

Use knowledge of students' cultures, experiences, and

communities to sustain culturally responsive classrooms and

schools.

91.6%

13

Figure 14: Perception of Employers on Preparedness in Planning and Instruction

USG-prepared teachers are able to:

Employer

Percent of Agreement

Plan and carry out instruction and programs based on knowledge

of state and district performance standards, curriculum, students,

learning environments, and assessment data.

96.4%

Use a variety of research-based strategies to support learning.

91.7%

Monitor and adjust strategies in response to learner feedback

88.9%

Integrate technology and other multimedia resources

appropriately to maximize learning opportunities for all students

and monitor and adjust strategies in response to learner feedback.

96.1%

Highlights from 2008 USG Graduate Survey
The results of the 2008 USG Graduate Survey indicate that USG-prepared teachers were extremely positive about the first year of teaching and consistently gave high marks to the institutions that prepared them to be a teacher. The overall return rate for USG prepared teachers was strong. A 53% return rate covered all USG institutions that prepare teachers. In addition, 728 schools across 125 school systems responded. Teachers' ratings and administrative ratings were in close agreement, as evidenced in Figures 15 and 16.

Figure 15: Perceptions of Preparation by Graduates in Knowledge of Learners, Teaching and Learning

USG Teacher Preparation Institution prepare you to:
Create learning environments that focus on engaging all students in learning, collaboratively and individually. Manage time, space, activities, technology, and other resources to provide active and equitable engagement of diverse students and adults in productive tasks. Implement effective classroom management strategies in all school places. Use knowledge about human motivation and behavior to develop strategies for organizing and supporting learning. Use knowledge of students' cultures, experiences, and communities to sustain culturally responsive classrooms and schools.

USG Teacher Percent of Agreement
97.6% 95.2%
92.3% 96.0% 95.5%

14

Figure 16: Perceptions of Preparation by Graduates in Content and Curriculum

USG Teacher Preparation Institutions prepare you to:
Plan and carry out instruction and programs based on knowledge of state and district performance standards, curriculum, students, learning environments, and assessment data. Use a variety of research-based strategies to support learning. Reflect on my practice and make necessary adjustments to enhance learning. Integrate technology and other multimedia resources appropriately to maximize learning opportunities for all students and monitor and adjust strategies in response to learner feedback.

USG Teacher Percent of Agreement
99.4% 95.3% 98.7%
96.0%

Graduates Give High Ratings to USG Teacher Preparation Institutions:
Across Content and Curriculum (6 rating statements), 7 of the 15 USG institutions received high ratings for preparation by their graduates (90-100%). The other 8 institutions were also highly rated on 5 out of the 6 statements (82-100%). Of all the skills, graduates' perceptions of their preparation in supporting literacy development in students were not as strong (82% to 89%).
Across Knowledge of Students, Teaching and Learning (7 statements), 7 of the 15 USG institutions received high ratings for the preparation of their graduates (90-100%). The other 8 institutions were also highly rated on 6 out of 7 statements with the confidence in working with students in need of special education services being lower (82% to 89%).
Across Learning Environments, (5 rating statements), 14 out of 15 USG institutions received high ratings for the preparation of their graduates (91-100%). This category includes classroom management (management of time, space, activities, technology to provide active engagement of diverse students).
Across Classroom, Program, and School-wide Assessment (3 rating statements), 13 out of 15 USG institutions received high ratings for preparation of their graduates (93-100%). There was a slight variation for 2 of the USG institutions.
Across Planning and Instruction (4 rating statements), 15 out of 15 USG institutions received high ratings for the preparation of their graduates (93-100%)
Across Professionalism, (8 rating statements), 11 out of 15 USG institutions received high ratings for the preparation of their graduates (92-100%). Of the 4 USG institutions, the only statement that was rated slightly lower was "I play a leadership role in the school community" (86-88%). This is understandable due to the fact that these are teachers in their first year of employment.

15

USG's System-Wide Strategies Support Teacher Preparation Efforts with Positive Results
The Board approved "20,000 by 2020" to meet 80% of the need for teachers in Georgia by 2020. USG institutions embraced the goals of this initiative as they relate to recruitment, preparation, retention and retraining. Each institution will produce a strategic plan with targeted goals, benchmarks, resource needs, and evaluation measures based on data from the P-16 Data Mart. Each campus has access to data about teacher needs for each of its primary service areas. In addition, the state was divided into 5 regional areas and institutions within those regions are collectively working to address regional teacher needs. USG institutions will work in collaboration with school districts and Department of Education Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) to meet the needs of teachers.
In 2008, the USG Destination Teaching website (www.destinationteaching.org) had more than 2 million hits and 35,000 unique visitors. The majority of those who contacted the Center were over 30 years of age. The demographic breakdown was 44% African American, 45% Caucasian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. Twenty-two percent were male.
Georgia State University took advantage of its urban setting to recruit and retain minority teacher candidates. These efforts have been so successful that Georgia State earned national ranking--12th in the nation in the number of minority teachers produced annually. Similarly, Albany State University's focus on minority teacher preparation earned this institution a ranking of 14th in the nation.
USG institutions recruited high school students into teaching by 1) working with Future Teacher programs, 2) providing college credit for high school students who have successfully completed three high school courses in the Peach State Education Pathway, and 3) Academies for Future Teachers offered on college campuses.
USG launched online programs for a Masters of Arts in Teaching degree and a Masters of Education degree through GeorgiaONmyLINE in Spring 2008 for practicing and potential teachers. Students enrolled in 120 courses the first semester, with numbers jumping to 535 for the summer semester.
Conclusion
USG institutions continue to make great strides in improving the quality and increasing the number of teachers they prepare. The University System of Georgia remains committed to playing the leading role in preparing educators for Georgia's schools. For the first time, the P-16 Department conducted state-wide, one-year follow-up surveys of graduates and administrators in K-12 to gather baseline data on the quality of teacher preparation by institution. The findings indicated that USG-prepared teachers are greatly valued by Georgia's public school systems.
In 2008, new USG-prepared teachers were highly sought after by Georgia's public schools, demonstrating that USG-prepared teachers are a good investment for school systems because: 1) the Board of Regents guarantees that USG-trained teachers will be valuable and competent educators; 2) USG preparation programs provide training in how to teach in Georgia schools and provide direct experience working in Georgia schools; and 3) USG-prepared teachers have more "staying power" in Georgia public school systems than their non-USG counterparts.
16

Appendix A - University System of Georgia Educator Preparation Institutions

Albany State University Dr. Wilburn A. Campbell, Jr., Dean 504 College Drive Albany, GA 31705 wilburn.campbell@asurams.edu

Armstrong Atlantic State University Dr. Patricia Wachholz, Dean 11935 Abercorn Street Savannah, GA 31419 patricia.wachholz@armstrong.edu

Augusta State University Dr. Richard D. Harris, Dean 2500 Walton Way Augusta, GA 30909 rharriso@aug.edu

Clayton State University Dr. Larnell Flannagan, Director of
Professional Education Programs 2000 Clayton State Boulevard Morrow, GA 30260-0285 larnellflannagan@clayton.edu

Columbus State University Dr. David Rock, Dean 4225 University Avenue Columbus, GA 31993 rock_david@colstate.edu

Dalton State College Dr. Carol Brand, Interim Dean 650 College Drive Dalton, GA 30720 cbrand@daltonstate.edu

Fort Valley State University Dr. Judy L. Carter, Dean 1005 State University Drive Fort Valley, GA 31030 Carterj02@fvsu.edu

Gainesville State College Dr. Maryellen Cosgrove, Division Chair P. O. Box 1358 Gainesville, GA 30503 mcosgrove@gsc.edu

Georgia College & State University Dr. Linda Irwin-Devitis, Dean CB 070 Milledgeville, GA 31061 Linda.irwin-devitis@gcsu.edu

Georgia Gwinnett College Dr. Cathy D. Moore, Dean 1000 University Center Lane Lawrenceville, GA 30043 cmoore@ggc.usg.edu

Georgia Southern University Dr. Lucindia Chance, Dean P.O. Box 8013 Statesboro, GA 30460 lchance@georgiasouthern.edu

Georgia Southwestern State University Dr. Lettie Watford, Dean 800 Wheatley Street Americus, GA 31709 ljw@canes.gsw.edu

Georgia State University Dr. Randy W. Kamphaus, Dean 30 Pryor Street Atlanta, GA 30303 rkamphaus@gsu.edu

Gordon College Dr. Jerry Stinchcomb, Interim Chair 419 College Drive Barnesville, Georgia 30204 jstinchcomb@gdn.edu

17

Kennesaw State University Dr. Arlinda Eaton Dean 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144 aeaton4@kennesaw.edu
North Georgia College & State University Dr. Bob Michael, Dean 82 College Circle Dahlonega, GA 30597 bmichael@ngcsu.edu University of West Georgia Dr. Kim Metcalf, Dean 1600 Maple Street Carrollton, GA 30188 kmetcalf@westga.edu

Macon State College Dr. Jeanette Arrington, Interim Dean 100 College Station Drive Macon, GA 31206 jarrington@maconstate.edu University of Georgia Dr. Andy Horne, Dean Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 ahorne@UGA.EDU Valdosta State University Dr. Philip L. Gunter, Dean 1500 N. Patterson Street Valdosta, GA 31698 pgunter@valdosta.edu

Appendix B Regents' Principles and Actions for the Preparation of Teachers for the Schools (revised in 2008)
Principle # 1: All institutions will meet National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standards at the acceptable level.
Principle # 2: The University System will guarantee the quality of any teacher it prepares.
Principle # 3: University System institutions that prepare teachers will implement aggressive recruitment, retention, progression, completion, and induction policies to increase the numbers, to expand the diversity of candidates, and to balance supply and demand.
Principle #4: University System institutions that prepare teachers will develop and implement innovative teacher preparation programs to respond to state need and to contribute to increased student learning and achievement in Georgia's public schools.
Principle #5: Within the University System of Georgia, the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Degree will be a program that leads to initial teacher certification (Because program completion results in a master's degree, certification will be awarded by the PSC at level 5.
Principle #6: Graduate programs for teachers who are already certified will focus on both strengthening their content knowledge and on deepening their understanding of teaching and learning. (Following degree completion, PSC will award certification at level 5).
Principle # 7: University System institutions that prepare teachers will support and reward all faculty who participate significantly in approved efforts in teacher preparation and school improvement through decisions in promotion and tenure, pre-tenure and post-tenure review, annual review and merit pay, workload, recognition, allocation of resources, and other rewards.
Principle # 8: The University System will continually assess the impact of the Principles and Actions for the Preparation of Teachers for the Schools to determine whether successful implementation contributes significantly to desired changes in preparation programs, to school improvement, and to increased student learning and achievement in Georgia.

18

19

Appendix C - Data Profiles

Total New Teacher Production

Institution
Albany State University Armstrong Atlantic State University Augusta State University Clayton State University Columbus State University Dalton State College Fort Valley State University Georgia College & State University Georgia Southern University Georgia Southwestern State University Georgia State University Kennesaw State University Macon State College North Georgia College & State University University of Georgia University of West Georgia Valdosta State University
TOTAL

2005
39 280 129
32 168
33 172 264 113 486 362
241 468 405 308
3500

2006
93 314 136
34 193
27 176 350 71 480 454
300 552 466 322
3968

2007
61 318 125
35 171
3 175 306 96 462 473 314 572 416 295
3822

2008
98 282 205
43 229
59 5 178 326 88 523 558 49 294 568 372 359
4236

20

Minority Teacher Production

Institution
Albany State University Armstrong Atlantic State University Augusta State University Clayton State University Columbus State University Dalton State College Fort Valley State University Georgia College & State University Georgia Southern University Georgia Southwestern State University Georgia State University Kennesaw State University Macon State College North Georgia College & State University University of Georgia University of West Georgia Valdosta State University
TOTAL

2004 60 27 14 17 20
24 10 89 11 169 25
6 25 61 43
601

2005 29 63 22 10 30
25 16 51 15 144 30
8 33 66 28
570

2006 70 84 26 12 44
21 15 63 12 192 34
12 46 65 49
745

2007 46 79 33 12 29
3 10 44 18 180 47
13 61 76 51
702

Percentage of Minority Teacher Production by Institution

2008
78 83 56 25 41 4 2 20 54 14 226 58 7 39 79 88 51
925

Institution
Albany State University Armstrong Atlantic State University Augusta State University Clayton State University Columbus State University Dalton State College Fort Valley State University Georgia College & State University Georgia Southern University Georgia Southwestern State University Georgia State University Kennesaw State University Macon State College North Georgia College & State University University of Georgia University of West Georgia Valdosta State University
TOTAL
21

2005 74.4
22.5 17.1 31.3 17.9
75.8 9.3
19.3 13.3 29.6
8.3
3.3 7.1 16.3 9.1 16.3

2006 75.3
26.8 19.1 35.3 22.8
77.8 8.5
18.0 16.9 40.0
7.5
4.0 8.3 13.9 15.2 18.8

2007 75.4
24.8 26.4 34.3 17.0
100.0 5.7
14.4 18.8 39.0
9.9
4.1 10.7 18.3 17.3 18.4

2008 79.6
29.4 27.3 58.1 17.9
6.8 40.0 11.2 16.6 15.9 43.2 10.4 14.3 13.3 13.9 23.7 14.2 21.8

Appendix D - Distribution of 2007 New USG-prepared Teachers in Georgia Classrooms in 2008

System Code
601 602
761 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 763 614 615 764 616 617 618 765 619 620 621 622 766 767 623 624 625
626 627 628 769 629 630 631 632 633 634 635

System Name Appling County Atkinson County Atlanta Public Schools Bacon County Baker County Baldwin County Banks County Barrow County Bartow County Ben Hill County Berrien County Bibb County Bleckley County Brantley County Bremen City Brooks County Bryan County Buford City Bulloch County Burke County Butts County Calhoun City Calhoun County Camden County Candler County Carroll County Carrollton City Cartersville City Catoosa County Charlton County Chatham County Chattahoochee County Chattooga County Cherokee County Chickamauga City Clarke County Clay County Clayton County Clinch County Cobb County Coffee County Colquitt County

636 Columbia County 771 Commerce City 637 Cook County 638 Coweta County 639 Crawford County

Number of USG Graduates
5 1
50 3 1
16 2
46 37
3 9 28 4 13 1 13 17 1 27 23 7 6 2 18 8 50 8 3 6 1 119
3 1 77 1 32 0 68 6 231 23 17
36 2
11 41
2

System Code
640 641 772 642 773 643 644 645 646 647 648 774 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 776 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 779 681 682

System Name Crisp County Dade County Dalton City Dawson County Decatur City Decatur County DeKalb County Dodge County Dooly County Dougherty County Douglas County Dublin City Early County Echols County Effingham County Elbert County Emanuel County Evans County Fannin County Fayette County Floyd County Forsyth County Franklin County Fulton County Gainesville City Gilmer County Glascock County Glynn County Gordon County Grady County Greene County Gwinnett County Habersham County Hall County Hancock County Haralson County Harris County Hart County Heard County Henry County Houston County Irwin County Jackson County Jasper County Jeff Davis County Jefferson City Jefferson County Jenkins County

Number of USG Graduates
11 4
15 7 2 4
110 3 0
28 72
2 0 3 46 0 5 7 4 16 7 63 4 151 15 11 1 27 14 0 2 278 8 65 1 13 9 5 1 47 57 4 16 4 3 8 9 3

23

Appendix D - Distribution of 2007 New USG-prepared Teachers in Georgia Classrooms in 2008

System Code
683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 781 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 784 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 785 723 724 725 786 726

System Name Johnson County Jones County Lamar County Lanier County Laurens County Lee County Liberty County Lincoln County Long County Lowndes County Lumpkin County Macon County Madison County Marietta City Marion County McDuffie County McIntosh County Meriwether County Miller County Mitchell County Monroe County Montgomery County Morgan County Murray County Muscogee County Newton County Oconee County Oglethorpe County Paulding County Peach County Pelham City Pickens County Pierce County Pike County Polk County Pulaski County Putnam County Quitman County Rabun County Randolph County Richmond County Rockdale County Rome City Schley County Screven County Seminole County Social Circle City Spalding County

Number of USG Graduates
2 21
7 4 7 6 23 0 5 22 8 3 13 11 0 6 7 5 0 8 4 4 8 4 66 21 4 4 86 11 1 3 9 7 10 2 5 0 3 2 38 22 12 0 8 0 1 11

System Code
727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736
745 789 737 738 739 740 791 741 742 743 744 792 793 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759

System Name Stephens County Stewart County Sumter County Talbot County Taliaferro County Tattnall County Taylor County Telfair County Terrell County Thomas County Thomaston-Upson County Thomasville City Tift County Toombs County Towns County Treutlen County Trion City Troup County Turner County Twiggs County Union County Valdosta City Vidalia City Walker County Walton County Ware County Warren County Washington County Wayne County Webster County Wheeler County White County Whitfield County Wilcox County Wilkes County Wilkinson County Worth County

Number of USG Graduates
2 0 17 1 1 3 3 3 2 10
7 8 16 5 2 5 2 16 6 2 2 23 3 7 24 15 1 4 19 1 1 5 24 1 2 0 8

24

Appendix E USG Board of Regents Surveys
Preliminary 2008 Report on New Teachers' Perceptions of the USG Teacher Preparation Experience One Year after Teaching in a Georgia Public School
Summary
Introduction The purpose of the USG Graduate Survey is to provide education faculty and administrators with meaningful feedback from recent graduates that will be useful in improving future teacher preparation programs across the University System of Georgia.
As the first survey of new USG-prepared teachers to be conducted both system-wide and in an electronic format, the USG P-16 Department utilized new online survey technology to both centralize and standardize the approach used by institutions to collect, review, and report information about the teacher preparation experiences of recent graduates.
The USG Graduate Survey The Graduate Survey consisted of 37 items (33 fixed and 4 open-ended items) grouped into six survey categories or components associated with the delivery of an effective teacher preparation program:
1. Content and Curriculum; 2. Knowledge of Students, Teaching, and Learning; 3. Learning Environments; 4) Classroom, Program and School-Wide Assessment; 5) Planning and Instruction; and 6) Professionalism.
Respondents were asked to use a four point scale (e.g., Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) to indicate the extent of agreement to a set of statements in each survey category. Open-ended items asked respondents to indicate the strengths of their respective program, offer suggestions, insights, and other comments that would facilitate overall program improvement.
Response Rates A total of 1309 graduates responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 53%. Institution response rates ranged from 29% to 100%.
Survey Findings
Based on the results of the 2008 USG Graduate Survey, USG-prepared teachers were extremely positive about their first year of teaching, consistently giving high marks to the institutions that prepared them to be a teacher.
Respondents rated all 33 fixed survey items extremely positive. Overall Range of Agreement to Survey Items: 84% to 99.9%
94.6% of respondents would recommend their teacher preparation program institutions to their peers, 5.4% would not.
215

Survey Categories 1) Content and Curriculum 2) Knowledge of Students,
Teaching and Learning 3) Learning Environments 4) Classroom, Program and School-Wide Assessment 5) Planning and Instruction 6) Professionalism

Number of Items (6) (7)
(5) (3)
(4) (8)

Range of Agreement 88% to 99% 94% to 99%
92% to 98% 96% to 97%
95% to 99% 90% to 99.9%

Conclusions
University System of Georgia (USG) institutions that prepare teachers have established a solid reputation for producing well-prepared and highly qualified teachers, and based on the results of the USG Graduate Survey, USG-prepared teachers are extremely positive about their first year of teaching, consistently giving high marks to the institutions that prepared them to be a teacher as soon as one year after employment as a fully certified teacher.
Whereas the 2007 Report on the Preparation of New Teachers by University System of Georgia Institutions provided empirical evidence to show that when compared to non-USG-prepared teachers in the workforce, USG-prepared teachers have a higher retention rate, a lower attrition rate, and a lower mobility rate (see 2007 Report on the Preparation of New Teachers for discussion), the current report underscores this discussion on USG commitment to teacher preparation by showing that even the individuals who have been passed the torch for educating Georgia's children the teachers themselves, believe they have been adequately prepared for the teaching profession.

USG Graduate Survey Results

CONTENT AND CURRICULUM
1. I am able to demonstrate broad, current, and specialized knowledge in my field(s). 2. I am able to understand and use content and pedagogical knowledge that is appropriate for diverse learners. 3. I feel well prepared to support literacy development in my students. 4. I stay current in my field(s) of expertise. 5. I am able to interpret and construct school, district, and programmatic curricula that reflect state and national content area standards. 6. I relate my field to other areas of the school and to everyday life.

Percent Agreement
98.2
96.8
87.6 98.6 96.8
97.5

Percent Disagreement
1.8
3.2
12.4 1.4 3.2
2.5

KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS, TEACHING AND LEARNING Percent Agreement

7. I hold high expectations for all because I believe that everyone can learn at high levels.

94.1

8. I demonstrate an understanding of how students develop and learn.

98.5

9. I am confident in my ability to work with students identified as needing special education services.

84.0

226

Percent Disagreement
5.9 1.5 16.0

10. I communicate effectively with students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

96.4

3.6

11. I use the best professional practices to meet the needs of diverse learners.

97.7

2.3

12. I understand how factors inside and outside of school may influence students' lives and learning.

99.0

1.0

13. I establish respectful and productive relationships with families and communities to support student learning.

97.7

2.3

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Percent Agreement

14. I feel confident in my ability to create learning environments that focus on

97.6

engaging all students in learning, collaboratively, and individually.

15. I am able to manage time, space, activities, technology, and other resources

95.2

to provide active and equitable engagement of diverse students and adults in

productive tasks.

16. I implement effective classroom management strategies in all school spaces.

92.3

Percent Disagreement
2.4 4.8
7.7

17. I use knowledge about human motivation and behavior to develop strategies

96.0 .

4.0

for organizing and supporting learning.

18. I use knowledge of students' unique cultures, experiences, and communities

95.5

4.5

to sustain culturally responsive classrooms and schools.

CLASSROOM, PROGRAM AND SCHOOL WIDE ASSESSMENT Percent Agreement

19. I choose, develop, and use assessment methods appropriate for instructional

97.3

and programmatic decisions.

20. I use available resources including technology to keep accurate and up-to-

97.3

date records.

21. I feel competent in my ability to use assessment data to communicate

knowledgeably and responsibly to students, parents, community, and school

96.1

personnel.

Percent Disagreement
2.7
2.7
3.9

PLANNING AND INSTRUCTION Percent Agreement

22. I plan and carry out instruction and programs based on knowledge of state

and district performance standards, curriculum, students, learning environments,

99.4

and assessment data.

23. I use a variety of research-based strategies to support learning.

95.3

24. I reflect on my practice and make necessary adjustments to enhance learning.

98.7

25. I integrate technology and other multimedia resources appropriately to

maximize learning opportunities for all students and monitor and adjust

96.0

strategies in response to learner feedback.

Percent Disagreement
0.6 4.7 1.3
4.0

PROFESSIONALISM
26. I work collaboratively with colleagues and other professionals. 27. I communicate respect and concern for all students.
275

Percent Agreement
98.7 99.9

Percent Disagreement
1.3
0.1

28. I understand and implement laws related to rights and responsibilities of students, educators, and families.

98.7

29. I follow established codes of professional conduct, including school and district policies.

99.9

30. I treat students equitably.

99.6

31. I play a leadership role in the school community.

90.4

32. I systematically reflect on teaching and learning to improve my practice.

98.4

33. I seek opportunities to learn based on reflection, input from others, and career goals.

99.5

n = 458

2008 USG Employer Survey Results

CONTENT AND CURRICULUM Percent Agreement

1. Demonstrate broad, current, and specialized knowledge in my field(s).

96.7

2. Understand and use content and pedagogical knowledge that is appropriate

for diverse learners.

94.3

3. Interpret and construct school, district, and programmatic curricula that reflect state and national content area standards.

96.5

KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS, TEACHING AND LEARNING Percent
Agreement

4. Hold high expectations for all because they believe that everyone can learn at

high levels.

95.1

5. Demonstrate an understanding of how students develop and learn.

93.1

6. Demonstrate a caring learning environment.

96.2

7. Communicate effectively with learners from diverse cultural backgrounds.

94.4

8. Use the best professional practices to meet the needs of diverse learners.

92.8

9. Understand how factors inside and outside of school may influence students' lives and learning.

94.0

10. Establish respectful and productive relationships with families and

communities to support student learning.

94.0

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
11. Create learning environments that focus on engaging all students in learning, collaboratively, and individually. 12. Manage time, space, activities, technology, and other resources to provide active and equitable engagement of diverse learners in productive tasks. 13. Use knowledge about human motivation and behavior to develop strategies for organizing and supporting learning.
14. Use knowledge of students' unique cultures, experiences, and communities to sustain culturally responsive classrooms and schools.
268

Percent Agreement
93.9
92.2
93.0
91.6

1.3 0.1 0.4 9.6 1.6 0.5
Percent Disagreement
3.3 5.7 3.5
Percent Disagreement
4.9 6.9 3.8 5.6 7.2 6.0 6.0
Percent Disagreement
6.1
7.8
7.0
8.4

CLASSROOM, PROGRAM AND SCHOOL WIDE ASSESSMENT

Percent Agreement

14. Choose, develop, and use assessment methods appropriate for instructional

and programmatic decisions.

94.3

15. Use available resources including technology to keep accurate and up-to-

date records.

97.3

16. Use assessment data to communicate knowledgeably and responsibly to

students, parents, community, and school personnel.

95.2

Percent Disagreement
5.7
2.7
4.8

PLANNING AND INSTRUCTION

Percent Agreement

17. Plan and carry out instruction and programs based on knowledge of state

and district performance standards, curriculum, students, learning

96.4

environments, and assessment data.

18. Use a variety of research-based strategies to support learners.

91.7

19. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to learner feedback.

88.9

20. Integrate technology and other multimedia resources appropriately to

maximize learning opportunities for all students.

96.1

Percent Disagreement 3.6 8.3 11.1
3.9

PROFESSIONALISM
21. Work collaboratively with colleagues and other professionals. 22. Communicate respect and concern for all students. 23. Understand and implement laws related to rights and responsibilities of students, educators, and families. 24. Follow established codes of professional conduct, including school and district policies. 25. Play a leadership role in the school community. 26. Actively participate in and contributes to school wide improvement efforts. 27. Seek opportunities to learn based on reflection, input from others, and career goals. 28. Systematically reflect on teaching and learning to improve own practice.

Percent Agreement 95.5 95.1 96.1
96.2 87.6 95.8 94.3
94.4

Percent Disagreement 4.5 4.9 3.9
3.8 12.4 4.2 5.7
5.6

297

For more information contact: Dr. Marti Venn

P-16 Department

Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

Marti.venn@usg.edu

Phone: 404-463-4552