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 data are not currently available. 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.
- 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 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%) 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
-
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.
- 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 2021–22Alternative 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
-
Year Did you obtain employment in a school setting? Did you obtain or continue employment in the school district where you completed your internship? To what extent did your preparation program prepare you well for the teaching job market? To what extent did your preparation program support you in your job search? 2017-18 29 / 34 Yes (85%) 4 / 34 Yes (12%) 29 / 34 say "Prepared Me Well" (85%) 23 / 34 say "Supported Me Well" (67%) 2018-19 25 / 29 Yes (86%) 3 / 29 Yes (10%) 23 / 29 say "Prepared Me Well" (79%) 23 / 29 say "Supported Me Well" (79%) 2019-20 22 / 23 Yes (96%) 7 / 23 Yes (30%) 18 / 23 say "Prepared Me Well" (78%) 15 / 23 say "Supported Me Well" (65%) Overall 76 / 86 Yes (88%) 14 / 86 Yes (16%) 70 / 86 say "Prepared Me Well" (81%) 61 / 86 say "Supported Me Well" (71%) - Student loan default rates
-
This three-year official cohort default rate data is for the University of Michigan as an institution.
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 Note: These data are reported three years in arrears, so fiscal year 2018 will be reported by September 30, 2021.
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=University+of+Michigan-Ann+Arbor&s=all&id=170976#fedloans
Placement Rates
- 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.