CAEP Accreditation

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.

CAEP Annual Reporting

Impact on P-12 learning and development

These are the most recent data available from the Michigan Department of Education. In addition, our EPP is in the process of designing a case study to observe the impact of our graduates in their classrooms. We expect to add the preliminary results of the case study to our website by April 2022.

State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings, 2014–15 through 2018–19
Year Total Effective +
Highly Effective
Highly
Effective
Effective Minimally
Effective
Ineffective
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%)
Aggregate 1376 1308 (95%) 331 (24%) 977 (71%) 57 (4%) 11 (<1%)
Indicators of teaching effectiveness

These are the most recent data available from the Michigan Department of Education.

State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings, 2014–15 through 2018–19
Year Total Effective +
Highly Effective
Highly
Effective
Effective Minimally
Effective
Ineffective
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%)
Aggregate 1376 1308 (95%) 331 (24%) 977 (71%) 57 (4%) 11 (<1%)
Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones

These data are not currently available. The EPP and the Michigan Department of Education each have employer surveys in progress. We expect to add the data from these surveys to our website by April 2022.

Satisfaction of completers

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.

In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
use instructional strategies to help students understand key concepts in the content area(s).
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 15 (52%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 14 (41%) 10 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 18 (62%) 6 (21%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 47 (51%) 22 (24%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
use knowledge of content area(s) to design high-quality learning experiences.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 14 (48%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 18 (53%) 6 (18%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 19 (66%) 4 (14%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 51 (55%) 17 (18%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
use instructional strategies to help students connect their prior knowledge and experiences to new concepts.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 9 (31%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 16 (47%) 8 (24%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 15 (52%) 8 (28%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 43 (47%) 25 (27%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
use multiple ways to model and represent key concepts in the content area(s) taught.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 11 (38%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 13 (38%) 11 (32%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 17 (59%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 41 (45%) 27 (29%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
question and challenge assumptions within the content area(s) being taught.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 8 (28%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 16 (47%) 7 (21%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 13 (45%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 41 (45%) 25 (27%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
apply various perspectives to analyze complex issues and solve problems.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 11 (38%) 9 (31%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 15 (44%) 8 (24%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 17 (59%) 7 (24%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 43 (47%) 24 (26%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
interpret and evaluate information in their content area(s).
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 14 (48%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 17 (50%) 7 (21%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 16 (55%) 6 (21%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 47 (51%) 18 (20%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
connect content knowledge to LOCAL issues in his or her teaching.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 5 (17%) 9 (31%) 6 (21%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 11 (32%) 8 (24%) 3 (9%) 2 (6%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 12 (41%) 6 (21%) 5 (17%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 28 (30%) 23 (25%) 14 (15%) 5 (5%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
connect content knowledge to GLOBAL issues in his or her teaching.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 8 (28%) 10 (34%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 10 (29%) 11 (32%) 3 (9%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 14 (48%) 6 (21%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 32 (35%) 27 (29%) 8 (9%) 3 (3%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
develop meaningful learning experiences to help students apply content knowledge to real world problems.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 8 (28%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 12 (35%) 10 (29%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 15 (52%) 8 (28%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 39 (42%) 26 (28%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
adapt instructional strategies and resources to support students from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 9 (31%) 10 (34%) 2 (7%) 1 (1%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 15 (44%) 7 (21%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 13 (45%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 37 (40%) 27 (29%) 5 (5%) 5 (5%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
adapt instructional strategies and resources to support English language learners.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 4 (14%) 11 (38%) 3 (10%) 4 (14%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 8 (24%) 9 (26%) 6 (18%) 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 8 (28%) 3 (10%) 10 (34%) 3 (10%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 20 (22%) 23 (25%) 19 (21%) 8 (9%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
apply modifications and accommodations based on legal requirements for supporting English language learners.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 4 (14%) 11 (38%) 4 (14%) 3 (10%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 7 (21%) 8 (24%) 7 (21%) 2 (6%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 7 (24%) 5 (17%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 17 (18%) 25 (27%) 18 (20%) 10 (11%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
apply modifications and accommodations based on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 5 (17%) 11 (38%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 12 (35%) 7 (21%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 11 (38%) 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 28 (30%) 24 (26%) 13 (14%) 5 (5%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
adapt instructional strategies and resources to support students with varying learning abilities (e.g., special education students, gifted and talented students, and students with disabilities).
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 8 (28%) 8 (28%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 13 (38%) 9 (26%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 12 (41%) 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 33(36%) 23 (25%) 9 (10%) 5 (5%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
create a learning environment which engages students in both collaborative and self-directed ways.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 7 (24%) 2 (7%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 15 (44%) 7 (21%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 13 (45%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 40 (43%) 24 (26%) 3 (3%) 3 (3%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
establish and communicate explicit expectations with colleagues and families to promote individual student growth.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 13 (45%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 13 (38%) 9 (26%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 29 16 (55%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%)
Aggregate 42 (46%) 20 (22%) 4 (4%) 4 (4%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
manage the learning environment to promote student engagement and minimize loss of instructional time.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 3 (10%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 11 (32%) 6 (18%) 2 (6%) 5 (15%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 10 (34%) 9 (31%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 33 (26%) 21 (23%) 6 (7%) 9 (10%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
facilitate the creation of digital content by students.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 10 (34%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 10 (29%) 12 (35%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 9 (31%) 12 (41%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 29 (32%) 34 (37%) 6 (7%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
create an online learning environment for students which includes digital content, personal interaction, and assessment.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 8 (28%) 9 (31%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 12 (35%) 9 (26%) 3 (9%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 8 (28%) 11 (38%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 28 (30%) 39 (42%) 9 (10%) 4 (4%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
integrate digital content into her or his teaching which is pedagogically effective.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 11 (38%) 9 (31%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 13 (38%) 7 (21%) 4 (12%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 15 (52%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 39 (42%) 23 (25%) 6 (7%) 2 (2%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
use technology tools to organize the classroom, assess student learning and her or his teaching, and communicate.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 10 (34%) 10 (34%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 15 (44%) 6 (18%) 3 (9%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 12 (41%) 10 (34%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 37 (40%) 26 (28%) 6 (7%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
practice high ethical standards in his or her use of technology.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 15 (52%) 6 (21%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 20 (59%) 3 (9%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 14 (48%) 7 (24%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 49 (53%) 16 (17%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
design or select assessments to help students make progress toward learning goals.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 29 13 (45%) 8 (28%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%)
2017–18 17 (50%) 6 (18%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 29 14 (48%) 8 (28%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%)
Aggregate 44 (48%) 22 (23%) 4 (4%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
analyze assessment data to understand patterns and gaps in learning for each student and for groups of students.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 11 (38%) 9 (31%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 14 (41%) 9 (26%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 13 (45%) 11 (38%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 38 (41%) 29 (32%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
In retrospect, my college/university prepared me to…
differentiate instruction based on student assessment data.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 11 (38%) 7 (24%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 15 (44%) 7 (21%) 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 12 (41%) 6 (21%) 5 (17%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 38 (41%) 20 (22%) 10 (11%) 2 (2%) 22 (24%) 92
I feel my teaching experience during this year...
was positively affected by the field experiences and clinical practice I had through my preparation program.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 14 (48%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 16 (47%) 5 (15%) 3 (9%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 17 (59%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 47 (51%) 17 (18%) 6 (7%) 0 (0%) 22 (24%) 92
I feel my teaching experience during this year...
included the ability to work with diverse students at my certificate grade level, including students with disabilities and English language learners, because of the preparation I received.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 10 (34%) 8 (28%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 10 (29%) 9 (26%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 14 (48%) 7 (24%) 9 (31%) 2 (7%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 34 (37%) 24 (26%) 15 (16%) 5 (5%) 22 (24%) 92
I feel my teaching experience during this year...
was shaped by the regular, constructive feedback provided by my college/university supervisor.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 14 (48%) 7 (24%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 14 (41%) 9 (26%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 15 (52%) 6 (21%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 43 (47%) 22 (24%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
I feel my teaching experience during this year...
was better because of the opportunities I had to voice concerns and issues to my college/university supervisor.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 12 (41%) 8 (28%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 10 (29%) 11 (32%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 10 (34%) 6 (21%) 8 (28%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 32 (35%) 25 (27%) 10 (11%) 3 (3%) 22 (24%) 92
I feel my teaching experience during this year...
was a product of the high expectations for my clinical practice and field experiences held by my college/university supervisor during my preparation.
Year Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree NA Total
2016–17 14 (48%) 4 (14%) 3 (10%) 1 (3%) 7 (24%) 29
2017–18 17 (50%) 6 (18%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (29%) 34
2018–19 16 (55%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 5 (17%) 29
Aggregate 47 (51%) 17 (18%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 22 (24%) 92
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%
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
# enrolled in Year 1 79 135 80 45 22 16
# completing Standard Cert requirements w/in 5 years 29 32 41 19 12* 9**
5-Year Completion Rate per cohort 37% 24% 51% 42% 55%* 56%**
* Data in progress—2016 cohort may complete requirements in 2020–21
** Data in progress—2017 cohort may complete requirements in 2020-2021 or 2021–22
Alternative 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
# enrolled in standard cert year w/in 5 years of initial enrollment 34 46 45 19 13 10
# of standard cert candidates completing requirements 25 32 41 19 12 9
Standard Cert Year Completion Rate 74% 70% 91% 100% 92% 90%
* Data in progress—2016 cohort may complete requirements in 2020–21
** Data in progress—2017 cohort may complete requirements in 2020–21 or 2021–22
Ability of completers to be licensed
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—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%
Title II Reports

In compliance with the provision of Title II of the Higher Education Act, the University of Michigan reports relevant data to the public. Please visit the governmental webpage housing Title II data for more information.

Ability of completers to be hired

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 Overall
29 / 34 Yes (85%) 25 / 29 Yes (86%) 22 / 23 Yes (96%) 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 Overall
4 / 34 Yes (12%) 3 / 29 Yes (10%) 7 / 23 Yes (30%) 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 Overall
29 / 34 say "Prepared Me Well" (85%) 23 / 29 say "Prepared Me Well" (79%) 18 / 23 say "Prepared Me Well" (78%) 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 Overall
23 / 34 say "Supported Me Well" (67%) 23 / 29 say "Supported Me Well" (79%)) 15 / 23 say "Supported Me Well" (65%) 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
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
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
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
Aggregate 14 (15%) 29 (32%) 37 (40%) 12 (13%) 92
Student loan default rates

This three-year official cohort default rate data is for the University of Michigan as an institution.

University of Michigan Student Loan Default Rates
Fiscal Year Default Rate Number in Default Number in Repayment
2015 1.5% 92 5,862
2016 1.1% 66 5,723
2017 1.2% 63 5,335
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=University+of+Michigan-Ann+Arbor&s=all&id=170976#fedloans
Note: These data are reported three years in arrears, so fiscal year 2018 will be reported by September 30, 2021.

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.