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.

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 2018-2019). 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%)
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 322 322 (100%) 112 (35%) 210 (65%) 0 (0%) 9 (0%)
Aggregate 1698 1630 (97%) 443 (27%) 1187 (70%) 57 (3%) 11 (<1%)
Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component R4.1)

State of Michigan Educator Effectiveness Ratings (2014-2015 through 2018-2019). 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%)
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 322 322 (100%) 112 (35%) 210 (65%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Aggregate 1698 1630 (97%) 443 (27%) 1187 (70%) 57 (3%) 11 (<1%)
Measure 2: Satisfaction of Employers and Stakeholder Involvement
Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones (Component R4.2|R5.3)

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 in 2022.

Stakeholder Involvement

These resources will be updated on an ongoing basis.

Stakeholder Involvement

Measure 3: Candidate Competency at Program Completion
Title II Reports (Component R3.3)
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—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%
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%
 
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**
# enrolled in Year 1 79 135 80 45 22 16* 28**
# completing Standard Cert requirements w/in 5 years 29 32 41 19 12 10* 16**
5-Year Completion Rate per cohort 37% 24% 51% 42% 55% 63%* 57%**
* 2017 cohort: 5-year window ends in 2021-22
** 2018 cohort: 5-year window ends in 2022-23
 
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 2018 Cohort
# enrolled in standard cert year w/in 5 years of initial enrollment 34 46 45 19 13 11 16
# of standard cert candidates completing requirements 25 32 41 19 12 10 16
Standard Cert Year Completion Rate 74% 70% 91% 100% 92% 91% 100%
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 Overall
29 / 34 Yes (85%) 25 / 29 Yes (86%) 22 / 23 Yes (96%) Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22) 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 Overall
4 / 34 Yes (12%) 3 / 29 Yes (10%) 7 / 23 Yes (30%) Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22) 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 Overall
29 / 34 say "Prepared Me Well" (85%) 23 / 29 say "Prepared Me Well" (79%) 18 / 23 say "Prepared Me Well" (78%) Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22) 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 Overall
23 / 34 say "Supported Me Well" (67%) 23 / 29 say "Supported Me Well" (79%)) 15 / 23 say "Supported Me Well" (65%) Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22) 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
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22)
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
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22)
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
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22)
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
2019-20 No data due to COVID-19 pandemic
2020-21 Data will be updated when provided by MDE (6/22)
Aggregate 14 (15%) 29 (32%) 37 (40%) 12 (13%) 92

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.