The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor's Teacher Education Program is accredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) through June 2023. This accreditation certifies that the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor has provided evidence that it adheres to TEAC's quality principles. More information can be found on the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation website.
The chart below lists the name of each endorsement program, including its appropriate grade bands and accreditation/approval status, that is attached to initial teaching certification.
- Endorsement Program Accreditation Status
-
Endorsement Program Grade Bands Accreditation/Approval Status Arabic 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Biology 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Chemistry 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Earth/Space Science 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Economics 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Elementary Education K-5 All Subjects TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) K-8 All Subjects Self-Contained Classroom TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) English 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) English as a Second Language K-8 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) French 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) German 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) History 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Integrated Science K-8 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Italian 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Language Arts K-8 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Latin 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Mandarin 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Mathematics K-8 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Physics 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Political Science 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Psychology 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Social Studies K-8 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015) Spanish K-12 State of Michigan continuing approval (2018) 6-12 TEAC/CAEP Accreditation (2015)
CAEP Annual Reporting
- Measure 1: Completer Impact and Effectiveness
-
Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component R4.1)
State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings (2014-2015 through 2021-2022). These are the most recent data available from the Michigan Department of Education.
State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings, 2014–15 through 2021–22 Year Total Effective +
Highly EffectiveHighly
EffectiveEffective Minimally
EffectiveIneffective 2014–15 127 111 (87%) 32 (25%) 79 (62%) 14 (11%) 2 (1%) 2015–16 232 212 (91%) 45 (19%) 167 (72%) 15 (6%) 5 (2%) 2016–17 276 260 (94%) 55 (20%) 205 (74%) 15 (5%) 1 (<1%) 2017–18 345 339 (98%) 75 (22%) 264 (76%) 4 (1%) 2 (<1%) 2018–19 396 386 (97%) 124 (31%) 262 (66%) 9 (2%) 1 (<1%) 2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic 2020-21 322 322 (100%) 112 (35%) 210 (65%) 0 (0%) 9 (0%) 2021-22 382 374 (98%) 120 (31%) 254 (66%) 6 (2%) 2 (<1%) Aggregate 1758 1692 (96%) 451 (26%) 1231 (70%) 63 (4%) 13 (<1%) Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component R4.1)
State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings (2014-2015 through 2021-2022). These are the most recent data available from the Michigan Department of Education.
State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings, 2014–15 through 2021–22 Year Total Effective +
Highly EffectiveHighly
EffectiveEffective Minimally
EffectiveIneffective 2014–15 127 111 (87%) 32 (25%) 79 (62%) 14 (11%) 2 (1%) 2015–16 232 212 (91%) 45 (19%) 167 (72%) 15 (6%) 5 (2%) 2016–17 276 260 (94%) 55 (20%) 205 (74%) 15 (5%) 1 (<1%) 2017–18 345 339 (98%) 75 (22%) 264 (76%) 4 (1%) 2 (<1%) 2018–19 396 386 (97%) 124 (31%) 262 (66%) 9 (2%) 1 (<1%) 2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic 2020-21 322 322 (100%) 112 (35%) 210 (65%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2021-22 382 374 (98%) 120 (31%) 254 (66%) 6 (2%) 2 (<1%) Aggregate 1758 1692 (96%) 451 (26%) 1231 (70%) 63 (4%) 13 (<1%) - Measure 2: Satisfaction of Employers and Stakeholder Involvement
-
Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones (Component R4.2|R5.3)
2020- 2021 Michigan Department of Education Administrator Survey Question N Percent Effective As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to… support all students in making connections to prior knowledge and experiences? 16 94% implement multiple strategies to present key content area(s) concepts? 16 94% implement strategies which maximize student engagement to support positive student behavior? 16 88% implement literacy and reading strategies appropriate to their content area(s) and grade level(s)? 16 88% support each student's socioemotional (e.g. social, emotional, psychological) development with instructional strategies and resources? 16 94% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent can (teacher name) apply instructional strategies and resources to support… gifted and talented students? 11 91% students from culturally diverse backgrounds? 16 94% English learners? 8 88% students with special needs or disabilities? 16 94% students experiencing trauma? 16 94% each individual student's learning abilities and needs? 16 94% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to build positive relationships with… students? 16 100% families/caregivers? 16 100% colleagues? 16 100% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to… demonstrate responsiveness and flexibility to unexpected situations which arise? 16 100% act in a manner consistent with ethical and professional educator expectations? 16 100% utilize constructive criticism to reflect upon and improve practice? 16 100% 2020-2021 EPP Principal Survey Question Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly or Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly or Somewhat Disagree Total Regarding learners and learning, new University of Michigan teachers that I've hired... Understand student learning and development 19 (49%) 18 (46%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Respect the diversity of the students they teach 28 (72%) 10 (26%) 38 (97%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39 Differentiate the instruction to support the learning needs of all students 15 (38%) 19 (49%) 34 (87%) 4 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 39 Treat students fairly and establish an environment that is respectful, supportive and caring 28 (72%) 9 (23%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Maintain an environment that is conducive to learning for all students 25 (64%) 12 (31%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Communicate clearly and effectively 27 (69%) 11 (28%) 38 (97%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39 Apply modifications and accommodations based on legal requirements for supporting English language learners 10 (26%) 21 (55%) 31 (82%) 6 (16%) 1 (3%) 7 (18%) 38 Apply modifications and accommodations based on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) 12 (31%) 22 (56%) 34 (87%) 4 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 39 Regarding content knowledge, new University of Michigan teachers that I've hired... Know and understand the content area for which they have instructional responsibility 26 (67%) 11 (28%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Use instructional strategies to help students to connect their prior knowledge and experiences to new concepts 23 (59%) 14 (36%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Demonstrate a commitment to work with every student to ensure master of the content and skills taught 21(54%) 16 (41%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Apply content and pedagogical knowledge 25 (64%) 11 (28%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Regarding instructional practice, new University of Michigan teachers that I've hired... Understand and use a variety of content-specific instructional strategies to effectively teach the central concepts and skills of the discipline 18 (46%) 16 (41%) 34 (87%) 4 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 39 Design or select assessments to help students make progress toward learning goals 18 (46%) 18 (46%) 36 (92%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 39 Analyze assessment data to understand patterns and gaps in learning for each student and for groups of students 13 (33%) 22 (56%) 35 (90%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%) 4 (10%) 39 Analyze the use data to plan, differentiate, and modify instruction 18 (46%) 16 (41%) 34 (87%) 4 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 39 Align lessons with Michigan Academic Standards 21(54%) 14 (36%) 35 (90%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%) 4 (10%) 39 Use a variety of instructional strategies 21(54%) 15 (38%) 36 (92%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 39 Align assessments with learning objectives 22 (56%) 15 (38%) 37 (95%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 39 Use technology tools to organize the classroom, to assess student learning and their teaching, and to communicate 27 (69%) 11 (28%) 38 (97%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39 Regarding professional responsibilities, new University of Michigan teachers that I've hired... Understand, uphold and follow professional ethics, policies and legal codes of professional conduct 29 (74%) 8 (21%) 37 (95%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 36 Communicate effectively with all stakeholders 23 (59%) 11 (28%) 36 (92%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 39 Establish and communicate explicit expectations with colleagues and families to promote individual student growth 23 (59%) 15 (38%) 38 (97%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39 Reflect on their professional practice 25 (64%) 13 (33%) 38 (97%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 39 2021-22 Michigan Department of Education Administrator Survey Question N Percent Effective As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to… support all students in making connections to prior knowledge and experiences? 30 90% implement multiple strategies to present key content area(s) concepts? 31 90% utilize available technology to enhance the learning experience of students? 31 94% implement strategies which maximize student engagement to support positive student behavior? 31 77% organize the learning environment to guide student engagement during instructional time? 31 81% implement literacy and reading strategies appropriate to their content area(s) and grade level(s)? 31 90% differentiate instruction based on student assessment data to support each student's academic achievement? 31 81% support each student's socioemotional (e.g. social, emotional, psychological) development with instructional strategies and resources? 31 81% understand and make accommodations based on student's IEP or Section 504 plan? 30 87% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent can (teacher name) apply instructional strategies and resources to support… English learners? 19 84% high performing students? 31 84% low performing students? 31 81% students experience trauma? 29 79% students from culturally diverse backgrounds? 27 89% students with special needs or disabilities? 29 79% each individual student's learning abilities and needs? 31 77% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to build positive relationships with… students? 31 84% families/caregivers? 31 90% colleagues? 31 94% As first-year teacher, compared to other first-year teachers, to what extent is (teacher name) able to… demonstrate responsiveness and flexibility to unexpected situations which arise? 31 77% act in a manner consistent with ethical and professional educator expectations? 31 94% utilize constructive criticism to reflect upon and improve practice? 31 97% Stakeholder Involvement
These resources will be updated on an ongoing basis.
- Measure 3: Candidate Competency at Program Completion
-
Title II Reports (Component R3.3)
- 2014 Title II Report (for 2012–13 academic year)
- 2015 Title II Report (for 2013–14 academic year)
- 2016 Title II Report (for 2014–15 academic year)
- 2017 Title II Report (for 2015–16 academic year)
- 2018 Title II Report (for 2016–17 academic year)
- 2019 Title II Report (for 2017–18 academic year)
- 2020 Title II Report (for 2018–19 academic year)
- 2021 Title II Report (for 2019–20 academic year)
- 2022 Title II Report (for 2020–21 academic year)
- 2023 Title II Report (for 2021–22 academic year)
Completer Certification Rates (Component R3.3)
Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2016–17 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 35 23 41 25 38 Total ON time (cert) 32 17 39 23 37 Cert Rate 91.4% 73.9% 95.1% 92% 97.3% Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2017–18 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 30 16 22 22 37 Total ON time (cert) 27 14 20 19 34 Cert Rate 90% 87.5% 90.9% 86.3% 91.8% Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2018–19 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 21 24 16 30 33 Total ON time (cert) 20 22 16 27 31 Cert Rate 95.2% 91.6% 100% 90% 94% Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2019–20 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 29 36 20 28 41 Total ON time (cert) 28 28 20 26 40 Cert Rate 97% 78% 100% 93% 98% Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2020–21 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 28 37 44 24 39 Total ON time (cert) 26 36 33 24 39 Cert Rate 93% 97% 75% 100% 100% Certification Rates—Traditional Pathways, AY 2021–22 Elementary UG Secondary UG Sec Cert Only ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 37 29 11 28 42 Total ON time (cert) 23 26 11 26 36 Cert Rate 62% 90% 100% 93% 86% Certification Rates—Alternative Pathway (M-ARC) Year Total # of Completers # of Completers Meeting Standard Cert Requirements Rate of Completers Meeting Standard Cert Requirements 2016–17 44 44 100% 2017–18 17 17 100% 2018–19 13 13 100% 2019–20 10 10 100% 2020-21 17 17 100% 2021-22 16 16 100% Graduation Rates
Traditional Pathways, AY 2016–17 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 35 23 25 38 Total ON time (degree) 33 22 25 37 Grad Rate 94.2% 95.6% 100% 97.4% Traditional Pathways, AY 2017–18 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 30 16 22 37 Total ON time (degree) 29 15 22 37 Grad Rate 96.6% 93.75% 100% 100% Traditional Pathways, AY 2018–19 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 21 24 30 33 Total ON time (degree) 21 24 30 32 Grad Rate 100% 100% 100% 97% Traditional Pathways, AY 2019–20 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 29 36 28 41 Total ON time (degree) 28 36 28 40 Grad Rate 97% 100% 100% 98% Traditional Pathways, AY 2020–21 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 16 37 24 39 Total ON time (degree) 26 37 24 39 Grad Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% Traditional Pathways, AY 2021–22 Elementary UG Secondary UG ELMAC SecMAC Total # of students 37 29 28 42 Total ON time (degree) 36 28 28 42 Grad Rate 97% 97% 100% 100% Alternative Pathway (M-ARC) - TFA-Detroit Initial Certification Participants 5-Year Completion Rates among All Participants 2012 Cohort 2013 Cohort 2014 Cohort 2015 Cohort 2016 Cohort 2017 Cohort 2018 Cohort* 2019 Cohort** # enrolled in Year 1 79 135 80 45 22 16 28* 29** # completing Standard Cert requirements w/in 5 years 29 32 41 19 12 10 16* 16** 5-Year Completion Rate per cohort 37% 24% 51% 42% 55% 63% 57%* 55%** *Data in progress - 2018 cohort may complete requirements in 2022-2023
**Data in progress - 2019 cohort may complete requirements in 2022-2023 or 2023-2024Alternative Pathway (M-ARC) - TFA-Detroit Initial Certification Participants Completion Rates for Participants Enrolled in Opt-in Standard Certification Year 2012 Cohort 2013 Cohort 2014 Cohort 2015 Cohort 2016 Cohort 2017 Cohort 2018 Cohort 2019 Cohort** # enrolled in standard cert year w/in 5 years of initial enrollment 34 46 45 19 13 11 16 18** # of standard cert candidates completing requirements 25 32 41 19 12 10 16 16** Standard Cert Year Completion Rate 74% 70% 91% 100% 92% 91% 100% 89%** **Data in progress - 2019 cohort may complete requirements in 2022-2023 or 2023-2024 - Measure 4: Ability of Completers to Be Hired in Education Positions for Which They Have Prepared
-
Ability of Completers to Be Hired in Education Positions for Which They Have Prepared
The following data represents program completers from the Undergraduate Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) program and Undergraduate Secondary Teacher Education (STE) programs within the EPP. The data was received via a Michigan Department of Education survey provided to all first-year teachers. The 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years are represented.
Did you obtain employment in a school setting? 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020-21 2021-22 Overall 29 / 34 Yes (85%) 25 / 29 Yes (86%) 22 / 23 Yes (96%) 36 / 37 Yes (97%) 44 / 44 Yes (100%) 76 / 86 Yes (88%) Did you obtain or continue employment in the school district where you completed your internship? 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020-21 2021-22 Overall 4 / 34 Yes (12%) 3 / 29 Yes (10%) 7 / 23 Yes (30%) 9 / 37 Yes (24%) 12 / 44 Yes (27%) 14 / 86 Yes (16%) To what extent did your preparation program prepare you well for the teaching job market? 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020-21 2021-22 Overall 29 / 34 say "Prepared Me Well" (85%) 23 / 29 say "Prepared Me Well" (79%) 18 / 23 say "Prepared Me Well" (78%) 32 / 36 "To a Great or Moderate Extent" (88.9%) 35 / 44 say “To a Great or Moderate Extent” (79.5%) 70 / 86 say "Prepared Me Well" (81%) To what extent did your preparation program support you in your job search? 2017–18 2018–19 2019–20 2020-21 2021-22 Overall 23 / 34 say "Supported Me Well" (67%) 23 / 29 say "Supported Me Well" (79%)) 15 / 23 say "Supported Me Well" (65%) 23 / 35 “To a Great or Moderate Extent” (65.7%) 30/44 say “To a Great or Moderate Extent” (68.2%) 61 / 86 say "Supported Me Well" (71%) How many job applications did you complete? Year 0 1–3 4–6 5–9 10–12 13–15 16 or more Total 2016–17 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 7 (24%) 4 (14%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 5 (17%) 29 2017–18 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 6 (18%) 6 (18%) 3 (9%) 2 (7%) 6 (18%) 34 2018–19 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 5 (17%) 8 (28%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 8 (28%) 29 Data no longer collected Aggregate 2 (2%) 22 (24%) 18 (19%) 18 (19%) 8 (9%) 6 (7%) 19 (21%) 92 How many interviews did you have? Year 0 1–3 4–6 5–9 10–12 13–15 16 or more Total 2016–17 1 (3%) 17 (59%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 29 2017–18 1 (3%) 19 (56%) 8 (24%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 34 2018–19 0 (0%) 15 (52%) 10 (34%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 29 Data no longer collected Aggregate 2 (2%) 51 (55%) 23 (25%) 8 (9%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 92 How many job offers did you receive? Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more Total 2016–17 2 (7%) 15 (52%) 3 (10%) 6 (21%) 2 (7%) 1 (3%) 29 2017–18 3 (9%) 13 (38%) 10 (29%) 4 (12%) 3 (9%) 1 (3%) 34 2018–19 0 (0%) 12 (41%) 9 (31%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 29 Data no longer collected Aggregate 5 (5%) 40 (43%) 22 (24%) 16 (17%) 6 (7%) 3 (3%) 92 In your opinion, how difficult was it/is it, to find a job in your content area(s)? Year Very Easy Somewhat Easy Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult Total 2016–17 6 (21%) 4 (14%) 15 (52%) 4 (14%) 29 2017–18 5 (15%) 12 (35%) 12 (35%) 5 (15%) 34 2018–19 3 (10%) 13 (45%) 10 (34%) 3 (10%) 29 Data no longer collected Aggregate 14 (15%) 29 (32%) 37 (40%) 12 (13%) 92
Placement Rates
- 2021 (AY 2020–21)
- 2020 (AY 2019–20)
- 2019 (AY 2018–19)
- 2018 (AY 2017–18)
- 2017 (AY 2016–17)
- 2016 (AY 2015–16)
Educator Preparation Institution Performance Score
- EPI Performance Scores
Pursuant to Title II of the Higher Education Act, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), in collaboration with educator preparation programs, has designed, developed and now administers a system for determining Educator Preparation Institution (EPI) Performance Scores. The purpose of the EPI Performance Score system is to identify, assist, and report teacher preparation programs which are not performing at a satisfactory level.
The EPI Performance Score observes and measures EPI performance relative to three goals aligned to the Michigan Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (MI-InTASC). These are: 1) Effective classroom teaching through demonstration of content knowledge and methods/pedagogy; 2) Continuous improvement pursuant to MDE priorities; and support of 3) Educator effectiveness ratings.
Please contact te.communications@umich.edu for more information.
Fall 2023 CAEP visit
The Marsal Family School of Education at the University of Michigan is hosting an accreditation visit by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) October 22–24, 2023. Interested parties are invited to submit third-party comments to the evaluation team.
We invite you to submit written testimony to:
CAEP
1140 19th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Or by email to: callforcomments@caepnet.org
Such comments must be within the specified period and based on the core tenets of CAEP accreditation standards of excellence, which recognize that:
- In CAEP's performance-based system, accreditation is based on evidence that demonstrates that teacher candidates know the subject matter and can teach it effectively so that students learn. In the CAEP system, EPPs must prove that candidates can connect theory to practice and be effective in an actual P-12 classroom.
- A professional education provider that is accredited by CAEP is expected to be involved in ongoing planning and evaluation; engaged in continuous assessment and development; ensure that faculty and programs reflect new knowledge, practice, and technologies; and be involved in continuous development in response to the evolving world of education and educational reform.
- Comments must address substantive matters related to the quality of professional education programs offered, and should specify the respondent's relationship, if any, to the institution (i.e., graduate, present or former faculty member, employer of graduates). Copies of all correspondence received will be sent to the university for comment prior to the review.