Skip To Content

              Siena Heights Home Page

( Forgot Password | Login Help )

Educator Effectiveness Evaluations 2013-14 Academic Year

These evaluations are performed by the school district of employment.

Total N= 55 teachers

96% of practicing teachers from Siena Heights University were evaluated in the effective to highly effective categories in the 2013-14 school year: 

Highly Effective

Effective

Minimally Effective

Ineffective

Raw Number= 9

Raw number =44

Raw number= 1

Raw Number=1

16%

80%

2%

2%

Source: Michigan Department of Education

Survey Reports for Education Program Efficacy 2013-14 Academic Year

Surveys are administered by the Michigan Department of Education to teacher candidates directly before graduation and to the field supervisors to survey program effectiveness. 

Survey Results for Teacher Candidate Supervisors

(Student Teaching Supervisors)

Survey Results for Teacher Candidates

(Siena Heights Students)

Overall Efficacy Results from Both Surveys

96.8%

95.4%

96.1%

 Source: Michigan Department of Education

2014 Year-Out Teacher Survey Results

2014 Year-Out Teacher Survey Results

Surveys are administered to teachers one year after graduation by the Michigan Department of Education.

Total Number (N) of Respondents= 4

Survey Questions

Teacher Response:

Strongly Disagree

Teacher Response:

Somewhat Disagree

 

Teacher Response:

Somewhat Agree

 

Teacher Response:

Strongly Agree

 

Teacher Response:

Don’t Know/ Doesn’t Apply

Total % of Strongly Agree & Somewhat agree

My program prepared me well for the teaching job market.

0

0

0

4

0

100%

My program supported me in my job search.

0

0

3

1

0

100%

My program provided opportunities for resume building.

0

0

0

4

0

100%

My program provided opportunities for interview preparation.

0

0

0

4

0

100%

My program holds a positive reputation among prospective employers.

0

0

0

4

0

100%

My program provided good advice on job placement opportunities.

0

0

2

2

0

100%

My program promoted networking for new teachers.

0

0

2

2

0

100%

In retrospect, my college or university prepared me to…

Total N=3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use instructional strategies to help students understand key concepts in my content(s) areas. 

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Use my knowledge of my content area(s) to design high-quality learning experiences.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Use instructional strategies to help students connect their prior knowledge & experiences to new concepts.

0

0

2

1

0

100%

Use multiple ways to model & represent key concepts in the content area(s) I teach.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Question & challenge assumptions within my content area(s).

0

0

2

3

0

100%

Apply various perspectives to analyze complex issues & solve problems.

0

0

2

1

0

100%

Interpret & evaluate information in my content area(s).

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Connect content knowledge in LOCAL issues within my teaching.

0

0

2

1

0

100%

Connect content knowledge in GLOBAL issues within my teaching.

0

1

1

1

0

67%

Develop meaningful learning experiences which help students apply content knowledge to real-world problems.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Adapt instructional strategies & resources to support students from diverse cultural & ethnic backgrounds.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Adapt instructional strategies & resources to support English language learners. 

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Apply modifications & accommodations based on legal requirements for supporting English language learners.

0

0

2

1

0

100%

Apply modifications & accommodations based on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Adapt instructional strategies & resources to support students with varying learning abilities (e.g. special education students, gifted & talented students, & students with disabilities).

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Create learning environments to support individual & collaborative learning. 

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Establish & communicate explicit expectations with colleagues & families to promote individual student growth.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Manage the learning environment to promote student engagement & minimize loss of instructional time.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Facilitate the creation of digital content by students.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Create an on-line learning environment for students which includes digital content, personal interaction, & assessment.

0

1

1

1

0

67%

Integrate digital content into my teaching which is pedagogically effective.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Use technology tools to organize my classroom, assess student learning, & communicate.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Practice high ethical standards in my use of technology.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Design or select assessments to help students make progress towards learning goals.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Analyze assessment data to understand patterns & gaps in learning for each student, & for groups of students.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Differentiate instruction based on student assessment data.

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Was positively affected by the field experiences & clinical practice I had through my preparation program.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Included the ability to work with diverse students at my certificate grade level, including students with disabilities & English language learners, because of the preparation I received.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

Was shaped by the regular, constructive feedback provided by my college or university supervisor. 

0

0

1

2

0

100%

Was better because of the opportunities I had to voice concerns & issues to my college or university supervisor.

0

0

2

1

0

100%

Was a product of the high expectations for my clinical practice & field experiences held by my college or university supervisor during my preparation.

0

0

0

3

0

100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data responses for rated questions:

36/38 Reponses were rated as strongly agree or somewhat agree, (95% efficacy) based on teacher responses one year after graduation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Summary of Michigan Test for Teacher Certification Results for Siena Heights University by Subject Area

Annual Summary of Michigan Test for Teacher Certification Results for Siena Heights University by Subject Area

A student can be recommended for certification based on the completion of the endorsement requirements in addition to the passage of the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification. The average passage rates are as follows for August 2011-July 2014:

Test (Subject Area)

Number of Students

Initial Attempt:

Number Pass

Initial Attempt: % Pass

Cumulative Attempt:

Number Pass

Cumulative Attempt:

% Pass

002 English

8

6

75.0

7

87.5

009 History

2

1

50.0

1

50.0

017 Biology

2

2

100.0

2

100.0

022 Mathematics (Secondary)

4

4

100.0

4

100.0

028 Spanish

2

1

50.0

1

50.0

044 Physical Education

2

1

50.0

2

100.0

051 School Counselor

6

3

50.0

4

66.7

056 Cognitive Impairment

9

4

44.4

5

55.6

063 Learning Disabilities

10

6

60.0

9

93.3

082 Early Childhood Education

2

2

100.0

2

100.0

083 Elementary Education

27

24

88.9

26

96.3

084 Social Studies

4

1

25.0

1

25.0

086 English as a Second Language

1

1

100.0

1

100.0

089 Mathematics (Elementary)

3

2

66.7

2

66.7

090 Language Arts (Elementary)

9

7

78.0

8

88.9

092 Reading Specialist

1

1

100.0

1

100.0

093 Integrated Science (Elementary)

1

1

100.0

1

100.0

095 Visual Arts Education

2

2

100.0

2

100.0

103 Elementary Education

8

3

37.5

4

50.0

105 Social Studies Elementary

1

1

100.0

1

100.0

106 ECE (General & Special Education)

6

5

83.3

5

83.3

All TESTS (excluding PRE Tests)

109

77

70.6

88

80.7

 Source: Michigan Department of Education