The North Carolina Recent Graduate Survey Report

Transcription

1 The North Carolina Recent Graduate Survey Report Fayetteville State University Education Policy Initiative at Carolina April 2014

2 One Two Three Four Five One Two Three Four Five Recent Graduate Survey and Teacher Evaluation Ratings for FSU Table 3 displays the results for FSU for both the survey of recent graduates and teachers ratings on the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System. As Table 3 indicates, the FSU graduates average (mean) responses concerning how well FSU programs prepared them for the challenges of teaching were significantly higher on 4 (facilitating learning) than those of first year teachers from all other programs and all non- sources. The FSU graduates responses were not statistically different from those of first year teachers from all other programs and all non- sources for the remaining four standards. Table 3: Recent Graduate Survey and Teacher Evaluation Results Recent Graduate Survey Results Principal Evaluation Results Teacher Groups FSU All Other All Non (0.642) (0.738) (0.755) (0.430) (0.644) (0.608) (0.367) (0.632) (0.625) (0.416) (0.641) (0.648) (0.550) (0.639) (0.614) (0.378) (0.519) (0.521) (0.414) (0.562) (0.573) (0.458) (0.531) (0.511) (0.458) (0.534) (0.556) (0.378) (0.522) (0.530) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses and evaluation ratings for the five North Carolina Professional Teaching s. The standard deviation is included in parentheses. +Indicates statistically significant differences (compared to FSU) at the 0.10 level. *Indicates statistically significant differences (compared to FSU) at the 0.05 level. Turning to the evaluation results, the average (mean) evaluation ratings for FSU graduates on all standards were similar to those for first year teachers from all other programs and all non- sources. A new feature of this year s report is a detailed analysis of each item in the Professional Preparation section of the Recent Graduate Survey. As can be seen in Tables 4 through 8, each item in the survey was crafted to address one of the five North Carolina Educator Evaluation s. Below each of these tables is an explanation of any statistically significant results.

3 Table 4: 1 (Teachers Demonstrate Leadership) 1: Leadership FSU All Other All Non- Lead in my classroom by establishing a safe and orderly environment for my students (0.996) (0.815) (0.804) Play an active leadership role in my school (e.g., participate in the school improvement (0.928) (0.981) (1.015) team and lead professional development) Play an active role in the profession (e.g., present at professional meetings and serve on regional or statewide advisory committees) Advocate for policies and practices to improve education for students (0.931) (0.728) (1.035) (0.951) (1.083) (0.937) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses for 1 survey items. The standard FSU graduates responses to each of the items addressing 1 of the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System were not statistically different from the responses of all other program graduates and all non- program graduates. Table 5: 2 (Teachers Establish a Respectful Environment) 2: Classroom Environment FSU All Other All Non- Develop lessons that counteract stereotypes and incorporate histories and contributions of all cultures Establish a rapport with my students Treat my students as individuals by appreciating differences and valuing contributions Develop teaching strategies for my students with learning disabilities Collaborate with colleagues, administrators, and families to understand and support student learning (0.588) (0.507) (0.786) (0.825) (0.695) (0.684) 4.109* (0.943) (0.810) (0.800) (0.678) (0.650) (0.868) (0.742) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses for 2 survey items. The standard As can be seen in Table 5, the FSU graduates average (mean) responses concerning whether their program prepared them well to develop teaching strategies for their students with learning disabilities were significantly higher than those of all prepared teachers and all non- institutions graduates. While this item has a statistically significant result, it does not affect the statistical significance of standard 2 overall, as can be seen in Table 3. For the remaining standard 2 items, there were not statistically significant differences between the responses of FSU graduates and those of all other or all non- prepared teachers.

4 Table 6: 3 (Teachers Know the Content They Teach) 3: Content Knowledge FSU All Other All Non- Align my teaching with the North Carolina Course of Study and/or Common Core s Understand the core concepts of my subject and/or grade level Plan interdisciplinary lessons Plan relevant and meaningful lessons Incorporate life skills into my teaching (e.g., responsibility and leadership) (0.752) (0.470) (0.786) (0.722) (0.771) (0.856) (0.712) (0.796) (0.808) (0.735) (0.866) (0.708) (0.775) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses for 3 survey items. The standard As can be seen in Table 6, the FSU graduates average (mean) responses concerning whether their preparation program prepared them well to align their teaching with the North Carolina Course of Study and/or Common Core s were significantly higher than those of all non- institutions graduates. While this item has a statistically significant result, it does not affect the statistical significance of standard 3 overall, as can be seen in Table 3. For the remaining standard 3 items, there were not statistically significant differences between the responses of FSU graduates and those of all other or all non- prepared teachers. Table 7: 4 (Teachers Facilitate Learning for their Students) 4: Facilitating Learning FSU All Other All Non- Incorporate 21st Century content into my teaching (e.g., global awareness and financial literacy) Understand the learning and development processes appropriate for my students Help students work in teams to develop leadership qualities Use technology in the classroom Use technology to promote student inquiry and engagement (0.507) (0.788) (0.725) (0.771) (0.786) (0.848) (0.860) (0.738) (0.781) (0.793) (0.854) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses for 4 survey items. The standard As can be seen in Table 7, the FSU graduates average (mean) responses concerning whether their preparation program prepared them well to use technology to promote student inquiry and engagement were significantly higher than those of all other institutions graduates. For the remaining standard 4 items, there were not statistically significant differences between the responses of FSU graduates and those of all other or all non- prepared teachers.

5 Table 8: 5 (Teachers Reflect on their Practice) 5: Reflecting on Practice FSU All Other All Non- Use a variety of methods to assess student learning (0.507) (0.736) (0.722) Use a variety of instructional strategies to foster student learning (0.752) (0.697) (0.686) Use student assessment and other data to guide decisions about my teaching (0.606) (0.799) (0.767) Adapt my teaching practices based on research (0.791) (0.807) (0.819) Seek resources to support my professional development (e.g. professional literature and workshops) (0.899) (0.814) (0.762) Note: This table presents mean recent graduate survey responses for 5 survey items. The standard FSU graduates responses to each of the items addressing 5 of the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System were not statistically different from the responses of all other program graduates and all non- program graduates. Before closing this section, we should note one surprising and substantively important finding concerning these assessments of first year teachers preparedness: the correlations between teachers evaluation ratings and their own ratings of how well their programs had prepared them were positive but strikingly low. By design, all correlation coefficients range between -1 and +1, with a negative 1 indicating that across all respondents, the highest possible values on one variable always go with the lowest possible values on the other, and a positive 1 indicating that the highest possible values on one variable always go with the highest possible value on the other. As Table 9 reflects, all correlations for both and non- respondents fell below 0.2, conventionally viewed as a low positive correlation. In other words, new teachers ratings of how well their programs had prepared them did not match or correspond to their evaluation ratings. Table 9: Correlations between Survey Responses and Principals Ratings All Responses All Responses All Non- Responses

6 School Context As indicated earlier, in addition to surveying first year teachers about their teacher preparation programs, we also asked them to respond to a series of items about four dimensions of the contexts in which they were teaching: peer collaboration, professional development, school leadership, and parental involvement. As Table 10 shows, on average, FSU graduates rated their schools similarly to all other graduates and all non- sources on all four constructs. In general, all new teachers rated their schools reasonably favorably on three of the four constructs (from just below 4 to better than 4.5 on a 5 point scale), but tended to rate them lower on parental involvement. Table 10: Recent Graduate Survey School Context FSU All Other All Non- Peer Collaboration (0.734) (0.768) (0.806) Professional Development (0.644) (0.711) (0.716) School Leadership (0.425) (0.614) (0.608) Parental Involvement (1.094) (1.039) (1.028) Note: This table presents mean school context ratings for the constructs of peer collaboration, professional development, school leadership, and parental involvement. The standard deviation is included in parentheses. +Indicates statistically significant differences (compared to FSU) at the 0.10 level. *Indicates statistically significant differences (compared to FSU) at the 0.05 level.