Completer Impact:
Unit Plan and Impact on Student Learning
Resident II Student Teaching ED 455 Assessment
InTASC Standards: 1- Learner Development; 2-Leaming Differences; 6- Assessment; 7- Planning for Instruction; 8- Instructional Strategies; 10- Leadership and Collaboration
Description of the Impact on Student Learning Assessment
The requirement was for the teacher candidates to demonstrate individual impact on
student learning by planning and implementing an academic unit plan and measuring
the impact using both formal and informal data for pre and post test data comparisons.
The assignment specifically addresses mastery of planning and instructional delivery
to demonstrate understanding and use of a variety of instructional strategies to help
learners develop content knowledge and skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
Candidates analyzed their data and prepared a PowerPoint presentation to share information
with classmates and the course instructor.
This assessment was designed to demonstrate that candidates can document their impact on student learning by creating a unit plan in alignment with InTASC Standards following these procedures. Create a unit plan. InTASC 7; Assesses content of the selected unit. InTASC 6; Contains activities that are aligned with the unit objectives. InTASC 7; Uses scoring methods that provide quantifiable data. InTASC 6; Conduct your pretest assessment and prepare a results sheet that includes the scores for each student who completed the pretest; Discuss your teaching of the unit and student responses. InTASC 6; 7; 8; Conduct your posttest. InTASC 6; Enter your posttest scores on the results sheet InTASC 6; Discuss After Pretests/posttest Analysis and submit electronic copy of your PowerPoint presentation InTASC 10
Evaluation - The teacher candidates’ unit plan was evaluated by the seminar instructor using the attached “ED 455 Student Impact Rubric”. The data table attached show all candidate mean scores fell within the target range of proficient with rating scores of 1 – Novice; 2-Effective: Emerging; 3- Effective: Proficient; 4-Highly Effective
The EPP measures “How satisfied the completers are with their teacher preparation experiences at Grambling State University” with a Follow-Up Survey at the conclusion of their first year of teaching. Each descriptive statement is aligned with national teacher preparation standards (inTASC principles) and represent the knowledge, skills and dispositions that have a positive impact on the learning and development of P12 learners. The survey asks completers to rate their degree of satisfaction with this rating scale 1-Ineffective 2- Effective: Emerging 3 – Effective: Proficient 4 – Highly Effective, associated with positive impact on P12 students. Items in the scale are aligned with 10 standards of the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC): 1 – Learner Development; 2 – Learning Differences; 3 – Learning Environments; 4 – Content Knowledge; 5 – Application of Content; 6 – Assessment; 7 – Planning for Instruction; 8 – Instructional Strategies; 9 – Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; and 10 – Leadership and Collaboration. Respondents to this survey reflect confidence that their own knowledge, skills and dispositions are allowing them to make a positive impact on the learning and development of the children in their classrooms. Results of the Program Completers 2024-2025 - Performance Level Ratings InTASC Standards are shown in the table attached.
Completer Effectiveness:
The EPP annually surveys the employers of program completers in the initial program. The purpose of the assessment is to provide the EPP with in-depth results on the educator preparation programs’ effectiveness in preparing teachers to succeed in the classroom. The EPP administered The Louisiana Educator Rubric which was designed through a partnership between the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) and the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to directly support improvements in classroom instruction. By clearly defining effective teaching and student-centered instruction, this rubric provides educators with a roadmap for strengthening their practice, facilitating high-quality coaching, and fostering collaboration around best instructional practices. The Louisiana Educator Rubric brings a comprehensive focus on four key domains: instruction, planning, environment, and professionalism. Each domain is further broken down into indicators and descriptors that clearly define effective teaching. Performance definitions are provided at levels: 5 - Significantly Above Expectations - Exemplary, 3 -At Expectations - Proficient, and 1- Significantly Below Expectations - Unsatisfactory.
The EPP collected data for 6 initial candidates. According to data collected for the 2024-2025 completers teaching in public schools were rated as “At Expectations Proficient (Some Evidence of Student-Centered Learning/ Student Ownership of Learning – Teacher Facilitates the Learning) on the 23 evaluated components, as shown on the attached The Louisiana Educator Rubric data table. This data is requested annually at the conclusion of each academic year. Results of the data collected are shown in the table attached.
Student Teacher/Intern Professional Portfolio
Spring 2025
The Professional Digital Portfolio document teaching effectiveness by compiling evidence of key components demonstrating effectiveness such as Learner Development, Learning Differences, Learning Environments, Content Knowledge, Application of Content, Assessment, Planning for Instruction, Instructional Strategies, Learning and Ethical Practice and Leadership and Collaboration. The teacher candidates are asked to analyze their own work to uncover clear, specific, and coherent narratives about my learning over time, clearly and concisely explain how each artifact connects to their learning narrative and effectively turn a critical eye toward my their own work, explaining why certain mistakes, assumptions, or oversights were made and how I responded to them and select artifacts from my own work that combine to support a clear, coherent, overarching narrative about my learning and the best representation of that particular INTASC standard. The Teaching Portfolio are structured around InTASC 1. Student teachers present the digital Professional Portfolio to a panel of educators external to Grambling State University who rate the presentation using the rubric provided. The table attached demonstrates rating according to InTASC 1 and Programs/Teacher Candidate with a rating score of 1- 5 - (5: Exemplary; 4: Distinguished; 3: Proficient; 2-Developing and 1 - Improvement Needed). All candidate mean scores fell within the target range of proficient.
Completer Focus Group
The overarching goal for the data analysis was to determine whether “program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they encounter on the job, and their preparation was effective.” A qualitative method was chosen to analyze the data from Focus Group interviews. The 2024-2025 Program Completers received an email invitation requesting participation in the virtual focus group. The Focus Group had four participants. A summary statement is included in the table attached that articulate themes that emerged from completers in their responses.
| Novice | Effective: Emerging | Effective: Proficient | Highly Effective | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rationale, Standards and Design | ||||
| Rationale of Design CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 | Candidate develops or selects an assessment that is poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes. | Candidate develops or selects an assessment that has limited alignment with instructional outcomes. | Candidate develops or selects an assessment that is correlated with learning outcomes. | Candidate develops or selects an assessment that is highly correlated with learning outcomes. |
|
Unit Assessment Design CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 |
Candidate develops or selects an assessment with little thought given to alignment with lesson objectives; assessments are not appropriate for the knowledge and/or skills being assessed. |
Candidate develops or selects an assessment that has limited alignment with lesson
objectives. |
Candidate develops or selects an assessment that is correlated with lesson objectives. There is evidence of alignment between assessment and lesson objectives. | Candidate develops or selects an assessment that is highly correlated with lesson objectives. The alignment between assessment and lesson objectives is strong and clear. |
| Assessment Design CAEP2..3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 | Candidate develops or selects a pre-test with little thought given to alignment with lesson objectives or Blooms taxonomy; assessment is not appropriate for the knowledge and/or skills being assessed. | Candidate develops or selects a pre-test that has limited alignment with lesson objectives or Blooms taxonomy. The alignment between assessment and lesson objectives is not clear. | Candidate develops or selects a pre-test that is correlated with lesson objectives and Blooms taxonomy. There is evidence of alignment between assessment and lesson objectives. | Candidate develops or selects a pre-test that is highly correlated with lesson objectives and Blooms taxonomy The alignment between assessment and lesson objectives is strong and clear. |
| Rationale for Assessment CAEP 1.3 CF-2.3 JNTASC6 | The candidate did not appear to provide a rationale for the assessment method selected or it did not appear valid for the purpose | Candidate provided a rationale for the assessment method selected that the assessment was needed | Candidate provided a rationale for the assessment method selected that is tied to the objectives/standards | Candidate provided a rationale for the assessment method selected that is detailed, tied to the objectives/standards, and to future learning (6a) |
| Assessment Context CAEP2..3 CF-2.3 INTASC 6 | Candidate did not describe a context for the assessment and address: when, where, by whom, and how the assessment was conducted | Candidate described context of when, where, and who conducted the assessment | Candidate described context of when, where, by whom, and how the assessment was conducted | Candidate described context of when, where, by whom, and how the assessment was conducted and how it would connect to future learning (6a) |
| Standards Alignment CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 |
Candidate did not provide samples of the pretest and posttest assessment or were not aligned with unit objectives and/or Bloom's taxonomy |
Candidate provided samples of pretest and posttest assessment that were aligned with parts of the unit objectives | Candidate provided samples of pretest and posttest that were aligned with overall unit objectives and levels of Bloom's taxonomy | Candidate provided samples of pretest and posttest that were aligned with each of the unit objectives and levels of Bloom's taxonomy (6e) |
|
Higher Order Questioning CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 |
Candidate items included questions that tested students at the knowledge, and comprehension levels | Candidate items included questions that tested students at the knowledge, comprehension and application levels | Candidate items included questions that tested students at the comprehension, application and analysis levels | Candidate items included questions that tested students at the comprehension, application, analysis, and evaluation levels |
| Data Collection | ||||
|
Assessment scoring methods CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 |
Candidate includes inadequate representation pre and/or post-test data. Charts and graphs are missing, or they are present but not meaningful or accurate. | Candidate's assessment included basic representation of pre and post test data. Graphic information from the data is not described or is incomplete. | Candidate's assessment used scoring methods that provided quantifiable data that is organized and includes multiple representation of pre-and post-test data, to include charts and /or graphs | Candidate's assessment used scoring methods that provided quantifiable data that is organized and clearly labeled, using multiple, varied representations of pre and post-test data in tables |
| Score Computation CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 | Candidate's computations did not include the pre and posttest scores | Candidate's computation included the pre and posttest scores | Candidate's computation included the pre and posttest scores along with calculations and discussion of change scores | Candidate's computation included the pre and posttest scores along with calculations of change scores. Results sheet includes calculation and discussion of change scores along and percentages of the changes |
| Comparative Analysis CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC 6 | Candidate used different assessments for the pretest and posttest | Candidate used almost identical assessments for the pretest and posttest | Candidate used pre and posttest assessments that had limited alignment | Candidate used pre and post-test assessments identical assessments with total alignment (6e) |
| Impact on Student Learning through Analysis of Data | ||||
|
Data Analysis CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC6 |
Candidate did not provide evidence of how the pretest results informed instruction by describing trends and patterns identified among subgroups or to make instructional decisions. | Candidate discusses how the pretest informed instruction is consistent with the results. The analysis is incomplete or offers a limited interpretation. Conclusions do not offer details about students' directions for future instructional decisions |
Candidate discusses how the pretest informed instruction is consistent with the results
and considers the implications of the results. |
Candidate discusses how the pretest informed instruction is consistent with the results, considers the implications of the results, and provides a plan for next steps. Interpretations delineate instructional decisions that will influence instruction during the lesson. |
| Written Analysis CAEP2.3 CF-2.3 INTASC 6 | Candidate includes inappropriate or misleading charts of pre-test data that contain class means and individual student scores, but is missing or has inaccurate reporting of sub-groups and percentiles. Graphic information is not described. | Candidate includes appropriate charts or another representation of pre-test data that contain individual student scores and class means but is missing or has inaccurate reporting of some data. Graphic information is not described or is incomplete. | Candidate includes multiple representations of pre-test data to include charts and/or graphs that contain individual student scores, class and sub-group means and percentiles that describe the results from the data in a meaningful manner | Candidate includes multiple, varied representations of pre-test data to include charts and graphs that contain individual student scores, class mean, and subgroup means, and percentiles that fully describe the results from the data in a meaningful and accurate manner |
|
Programs/ |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
InTASC 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinesiology | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| EE | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE/SPED | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| HIST | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| EE/SPED | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Kinesiology | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| EE | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| EE | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| EE | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Mean Score | 3.46 | 3.6 | 3.53 | 3.67 | 3.53 | 3.6 | 3.53 | 3.53 | 3.53 | 3.57 |
5 - Exemplary 4 - Distinguished 3 - Proficient 2 - Developing 1 - Improvement Needed
All candidate mean scores fell within the target range of proficient.
| Traditional n=6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Instruction | ||||
| 1. | Standards and Objectives | 100% | ||
| 2. | Motivating Students | 20% | 80% | |
| 3. | Presenting Instructional Content | 100% | ||
| 4. | Lesson Structure and Pacing | 100% | ||
| 5. | Activities and Materials | 100% | ||
| 6. | Questioning | 20% | 80% | |
| 7. | Academic Feedback | 100% | ||
| 8. | Grouping Students | 100% | ||
| 9. | Teacher Content Knowledge | 100% | ||
| 10. | Teacher Knowledge of Students | 20% | 80% | |
| 11. | Thinking | 80% | 20% | |
| 12. | Problem-Solving | 100% | ||
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Planning | ||||
| 1. | Instructional Plans | 100% | ||
| 2. | Student Work | 100% | ||
| 3. | Assessment | 100% | ||
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Environment | ||||
| 1. | Expectations | 100% | ||
| 2. | Engaging Students and Managing Behavior | 40% | 60% | |
| 3. | Environment | 100% | ||
| 4. | Respectful Conditions | 40% | 60% | |
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Professionalism | ||||
| 1. | Growing and Developing Professionally | 20% | 80% | |
| 2. | Reflecting on Teaching | 100% | ||
| 3. | School Involvement | 20% | 80% | |
| 4. | School Responsibilities | 100% | ||
|
Evaluation Criteria InTASC Standards Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration Follow-Up Survey - Question #7 - My ability to encourage family and community engagement in my classroom. Follow-Up Survey - Question #11 – My ability to engage in leadership and mentoring activities to assist other teachers. |
Performance Level ratings from Completers |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Ineffective 2-Effective: Emerging 3-Effective: Proficient 4-Highly Effective | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|
Standard #1: Learner Development |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
Standard #2: Learning Differences |
1 1 |
4 5 |
4 3 |
|
|
Standard #3: Learning Environments |
4 |
5 |
||
|
Standard #4: Content Knowledge |
6 |
3 |
||
|
Standard #5: Application of Content |
7 5 |
2 5 |
||
|
Standard #6: Assessment |
8 4 |
2 4 |
||
|
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction |
7 3 |
2 5 |
||
|
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies |
7 3 |
2 5 |
||
|
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice |
5 |
5 |
||
|
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration |
4 4 |
4 4 |
||
| n=4 | |
|---|---|
| Questions | Completers Overall Response |
| Question 1. How well did the program prepare you to teach your subject areas? | THEME: Felt Well Prepared in Subject Areas |
| Question 2. Have you had a chance to teach with colleagues who went through other programs? | THEME: Compared with Colleagues I am Confident in my Teaching Preparation |
| Question 3. Do you think you were prepared to teach diverse students (economically, ethnically, language, etc.)? | THEME: Prepared for Diverse Students but needed more practice |
| Question 4. How do you think the program prepared you to create a safe learning environment in your classroom? | THEME: I am prepared to provide safe learning environment based on training and experience |
| Question 5. How well do you feel you are able to work with families and community and colleagues? | THEME: We were really prepared and have experienced success with parents, community and colleagues |
| Question 6. “How do you think the program did in helping you utilize technology? | THEME: We were extremely well prepared to work with technology |
| Question 7. How well were you prepared to assess students? | THEME: Taught to assess but the more experience the better the assessing |
| Question 8. Although you all have been at the schools for fewer than three years, have you been able to take the lead on some things? | THEME: Demonstrated leadership early in teaching career |
| Question 9. How can we improve our teacher preparation program? | THEME: Even a good program can be improved |
Employer Survey
The College of Education annually surveys the employers of program completers in the initial program. The purpose of the assessment is to provide the EPP with in-depth results on the educator preparation programs’ effectiveness in preparing teachers to succeed in the classroom. The EPP administered The Louisiana Educator Rubric which was designed through a partnership between the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) and the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) to directly support improvements in classroom instruction. By clearly defining effective teaching and student-centered instruction, this rubric provides educators with a roadmap for strengthening their practice, facilitating high-quality coaching, and fostering collaboration around best instructional practices. The Louisiana Educator Rubric brings a comprehensive focus on four key domains: instruction, planning, environment, and professionalism. Each domain is further broken down into indicators and descriptors that clearly define effective teaching. Performance definitions are provided at levels: 5 - Significantly Above Expectations - Exemplary, 3 -At Expectations - Proficient, and 1- Significantly Below Expectations - Unsatisfactory.
The rubric was electronically distributed to seventeen principals for the 2024-2025 completers. Of these seventeen employers, we obtained six responses for a 35% return rate.
2024-2025 Employer Survey Strengths:
(See table attached for data from Louisiana Educator Rubric)
PK-16+
The primary role of the PK-16+ Council includes reviewing issues and areas of concern relevant to P-12 schools, along with developing and providing professional development activities for new and veteran teachers. The PK-16+ Co-chairs ensure that collaborative efforts take place between the unit and P12 schools. Responsibilities of the PK-16+ Council are: 1. To create cross-institutional relationships with other stakeholders. 2. To collect, analyze, and use data for program improvements between the University and PK-12 settings. The PK-16+ includes teachers and administrators from P-12 urban and suburban settings, recent completers, EPP faculty and administrators. The PK-16+ council meets quarterly per academic year.
MOUs/Partner Schools
To ensure that partnerships are mutually beneficial and include mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation and exit, Memoranda of Understanding are created in collaboration with each district to personalize the experiences for candidates and the schoolhouse. Additionally, each Memorandum of Understanding is developed to highlight the specific collaborative clinical components active within the district. The MOU remains in effect until or unless changes are needed by either party. The EPP has a total of twenty-five MOUs/partnerships.
| Traditional n=6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Instruction | ||||
| 1. | Standards and Objectives | 100% | ||
| 2. | Motivating Students | 20% | 80% | |
| 3. | Presenting Instructional Content | 100% | ||
| 4. | Lesson Structure and Pacing | 100% | ||
| 5. | Activities and Materials | 100% | ||
| 6. | Questioning | 20% | 80% | |
| 7. | Academic Feedback | 100% | ||
| 8. | Grouping Students | 100% | ||
| 9. | Teacher Content Knowledge | 100% | ||
| 10. | Teacher Knowledge of Students | 20% | 80% | |
| 11. | Thinking | 80% | 20% | |
| 12. | Problem-Solving | 100% | ||
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Planning | ||||
| 1. | Instructional Plans | 100% | ||
| 2. | Student Work | 100% | ||
| 3. | Assessment | 100% | ||
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Environment | ||||
| 1. | Expectations | 100% | ||
| 2. | Engaging Students and Managing Behavior | 40% | 60% | |
| 3. | Environment | 100% | ||
| 4. | Respectful Conditions | 40% | 60% | |
| Significantly Above Expectations (5) Exemplary | At Expectations (3) Proficient | Significantly Below Expectations (1) Unsatisfactory | ||
| Professionalism | ||||
| 1. | Growing and Developing Professionally | 20% | 80% | |
| 2. | Reflecting on Teaching | 100% | ||
| 3. | School Involvement | 20% | 80% | |
| 4. | School Responsibilities | 100% | ||
Initial Programs: State licensure exams
Teacher candidates seeking initial licensure in Louisiana are required to take and pass the required General Pedagogy exam and Content Specialty exam. Candidates must meet the qualifying score for each required exam to become eligible for licensure in the state of Louisiana. Candidates must schedule testing through ETS, taking the exam(s) specifically required by the state of Louisiana. In the tables attached, a Pass status indicates that the candidate passed all the Praxis exams required for licensure.
The EPP pass rate for candidates seeking initial certification during the 22-23, 23-24 and 24-25 academic years were 100% respectively.
Initial Programs: Grade-Point Averages
At the point of program completion, initial licensure candidates also demonstrate competency by earning an overall GPA of at least 3.24. For our initial licensure programs, the overall average GPA at program completion during 2024-2025 academic year was 3.28 for Elementary Education Grades 1-5, 3.04 for History - Social Studies Concentration, 2.89 - Kinesiology-Pedagogy, and 3.36 Elementary Education/ Special Education M/M Grades 1-5. The EPP’s GPA disaggregated data is included in Initial Program Candidates’ Average GPA at Completion by Program table attached. (See table attached for data for the Initial Program Candidates’ Average GPA at Completion by Program)
Title II Reporting
In addition to the proprietary assessments and grade-point averages and transition points, the EPP also reports completion data to the federal government under the Higher Education Act. The information contained in the 2024-2025 Title II Reports at the end of this section includes assessment pass rates from recent years. (Attached - Title II Report: Grambling State University Traditional Report AY 2024-2025)
|
BA Music Education - Instrumental K-12/Vocal K-12 |
|
|---|---|
| Semester |
Music |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=2 |
| Academic Year 2023-2024 | N=0 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 | N=0 |
|
BS Elementary Education (Grades 1-5) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semester |
5002 |
5003 |
5004 |
5005 |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=12 |
N=12 |
N=12 |
N=12 |
| Academic Year 2023-2024 |
N=9 |
N=9 |
N=9 |
N=9 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=14 |
N=14 |
N=14 |
N=14 |
|
BS Elementary Education and Special Education (Mild/Moderate) |
||
|---|---|---|
| Semester |
SPED M/M |
SPED M/M |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=1 |
|
| Academic Year 2023-2024 | N=0 | |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=2 |
N=1 |
|
BS Kinesiology: Pedagogy (Teaching K-12) |
|
|---|---|
| Semester |
Kinesiology |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=0 |
| Academic Year 2023-2024 | N=0 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=2 |
|
BS Secondary Education and Teaching (Biology/Mathematics/Chemistry) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semester |
(5235) Biology |
(5161) |
(5245) |
5086 |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=1 |
N=0 |
N=0 |
|
| Academic Year 2023-2024 |
|
|
|
N=1 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=0 |
N=0 |
N=0 |
N=0 |
|
PLT: Principles of Learning and Teaching |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Semester |
5622 |
5623 |
5624 |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=12 |
N=1 |
N=2 |
| Academic Year 2023-2024 |
N=9 |
|
N=1 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=14 |
|
N=3 |
|
BA – History – Social Studies Education |
|
|---|---|
| Semester |
Social Studies |
| Academic Year 2022-2023 |
N=0 |
| Academic Year 2023-2024 | N=0 |
| Academic Year 2024-2025 |
N=1 |
|
INITIAL PROGRAMS |
# of candidates | GPA Average | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Initial Candidates | 17 | 3.24 | 7 | 10 |
| Elementary Education Grades 1-5 | 11 | 3.28 | 4 | 7 |
| History -Social Studies Concentration | 1 | 3.04 | 1 | 0 |
| Kinesiology-Pedagogy | 2 | 2.89 | 2 | 0 |
| Elementary Education/ Special Education M/M Grades 1-5 | 3 | 3.36 | 0 | 3 |
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program within IHE
| Title II Reporting Services |
HEOA - Title II 2024 - 2025 Academic Year |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institution Name | Grambling State University | |||||
| Institution Code | 6250 | |||||
| State | Louisiana | |||||
| April 3, 2026 | ||||||
| Statewide | ||||||
| Group | Number Taking Assessment1 |
Number Passing Assessment2 |
Institutional Pass Rate |
Number Taking Assessment1 |
Number Passing Assessment2 |
Statewide Pass Rate |
| All Program Completers, 2024-25 | 17 | 17 | 100% | 602 | 592 | 98% |
| All Program Completers, 2023-24 | 9 | 589 | 584 | 99% | ||
| All Program Completers, 2022-23 | 15 | 15 | 100% | 662 | 264 | 97% |
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate,
the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level "Number Taking Assessment" may differ from assessment level "Number
Taking Assessment" because each student is counted once at the summary level but may
be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
Initial Follow-Up Survey 2024-2025
The Follow-Up Survey provides an important source of data regarding employment in teaching positions. Employment follow-up data collected across three consecutive cycles (2022–2025) consistently demonstrate that the EPP completers are successfully hired in positions aligned with their certification preparation. The Follow-Up Survey provides an important source of data regarding employment in teaching positions. A follow-up survey was electronically distributed to the seventeen graduates. The aim was to track employment statuses 12 months post-graduation. Ten graduates completed the Follow-up Survey for Graduates for a 59% response rate.
Please describe your current employment situation by choosing the appropriate response (n=10)
Employed in the education field:
100% of the Grambling State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Department completers that responded indicated that they were employed in their educational field.
0% of the Grambling State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Department completers that responded indicated that they were employed full-time in a field other than education.
Employment Status:
100% of the Grambling State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Department completers that responded indicated that they were employed full-time.
0% of the Grambling State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Department completers that responded indicated that they were unemployed and not seeking employment.
Enrolled in a Graduate/Professional degree Program
40% of the Grambling State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Department completers that responded indicated that they were attending college to earn an advanced degree.
The table attached will show the percentages of the initial completers who were employed in their area of certification for the last three academic years.
| Initial Programs | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-2025 | 2023-24 | 2022-2023 | |||||||
| Program/ Licensure Area | Program Completers | Have teaching positions for which they were prepared | Percentage of completers having teaching positions for which they were prepared | Program Completers | Have teaching positions for which they were prepared | Percentage of completers having teaching positions for which they were prepared | Program Completers | Have teaching positions for which they were prepared | Percentage of completers having teaching positions for which they were prepared |
| Elementary Education Grades 1-5 | 6 | n=6 | 100% | 8 | n=6 | 75% | 11 | n=6 | 55% |
| Elementary Education & Special Education MM Grades 1-5 | 3 | n=3 | 100% | 1 | |||||
| Secondary Education - Biology | 1 | n=1 | 100% | ||||||
| Secondary Education - Mathematics | |||||||||
| Secondary Education - Chemistry | |||||||||
| Music – Vocal | |||||||||
| Music – Instrumental | 2 | n=1 | 50% | ||||||
| Social Studies | 1 | n=1 | 100% | ||||||
| PK-3 | |||||||||
| Health & Physical Education | 1 | n=1 | 100% | ||||||
|
1=Graduate School |
|||||||||
| Total | 10 | 10 | 100% | 9 | 7 | 78% | 15 | 8 | 53% |