1 / 68

Available at: www.oseda.missouri.edu/presentations

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education First-Year Teacher Survey, 2007 January 11, 2008 Jefferson City, Missouri Bill Elder University of Missouri Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis. Available at: www.oseda.missouri.edu/presentations. “Good News”.

elmo
Download Presentation

Available at: www.oseda.missouri.edu/presentations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary EducationFirst-Year Teacher Survey, 2007January 11, 2008Jefferson City, MissouriBill ElderUniversity of MissouriOffice of Social and Economic Data Analysis Available at: www.oseda.missouri.edu/presentations

  2. “Good News” • Both Teacher and Principal Ratings are quite positive about Preparation • Linkages from DESE core data and web survey applications worked well and can be improved • Response rates for web survey were comparatively high: • Teachers 60% • Principals 50%

  3. “Good or Very Good”Teachers 84% --- Principals 80%

  4. Overview • Background • Source of Items • Methods • Reports (descriptive statistics) -- CDs • Statewide frequency reports • Institution specific frequency reports (n>5) • Statewide cross-tabulations reports • Review 2007 Results • Discussion • Future directions • Review of questions • Additional analyses

  5. Background—Items • Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Standards (MoSTEPS) • Teacher and Principal Items not aligned as well as possible but quite similar • May desire additional items (mentoring)

  6. Background--Methods • 100% of Missouri first-year teachers contacted by letter and email (@ 5,150) • First-year teachers defined by DESE Core Data • Survey is confidential but not anonymous (security) • Principal survey specifically referenced individual first-year teachers • Principal responses were limited to no more than six first-year teachers (if >6, randomly selected from Mo.)

  7. Background--Methods • Communications included individual letter from the Commissioner and email follow-up until over 50% response rate achieved • Gathered as late in the year as possible April-May 2007 • Relatively short survey with easy responses formats – related to response • Characteristics in Core Data • Short open-ended question possible in 2008

  8. Reports and CD • Statewide frequency reports for teacher and principal surveys • Institution specific frequency reports for teacher and principal surveys (n > 5) • Selected statewide cross tabulations for teacher and principal surveys • Additional reports possible in March

  9. Review 2007 Results Teachers 84% --- Principals 80% Question #20 Teachers Question #14 Principals

  10. Factor Analysis of Teacher SurveySuggest Five Survey DimensionsDimension Teacher Questions • Overall Rating 20 • Institution specific customized questions • Additional certifications • More specific categories (as N allows) • Teaching outside Initial certification – additional cert. • Professional development • Continuing education • Classroom Management • Assessment For Learning • Subject Mastery 4 • Planning for Teaching 5-10 • Teaching 11-17 • Using Technology 18-19

  11. Subject Level Mastery -- Teachers

  12. Planning for Teaching -- Teachers

  13. Teaching -- Teachers

  14. Technology -- Teachers

  15. Subject Level Mastery -- Principals

  16. Planning for Teaching -- Principals

  17. Teaching -- Principals

  18. Technology -- Principals

  19. Selected Cross-Tabulations • Percent Free and Reduced Lunch • District Geographic Locale • District Enrollment Size • Recent Completer • In or Out of State Educational Program • Public or Private Institution • District Accreditation Status • Others …..

  20. Cross Tabulation Factors

  21. Cross Tabulation Factors

  22. Cross Tabulation Factors

  23. Cross Tabulation Factors

  24. Cross Tabulation Factors

  25. Cross Tabulation Factors

  26. Cross Tabulation Factors

  27. Good or Very Good 84% FRL Size Recent Completer In-Out of State Accreditation Status Good or Very Good 80% FRL Size Type of Program Accreditation Status Rating of Quality of Teacher PreparationTeachers #20 Principals #14

  28. T20

  29. T20

  30. T20

  31. T20

  32. T20

  33. P14

  34. P14

  35. P14

  36. P14

  37. Good or Very Good 72% FRL Locale Size Good or Very Good 75% Size FRL Recent Completer Accreditation Status Knowledge of Subjects TaughtTeachers #4 Principals #1

  38. T4

  39. T4

  40. T4

  41. P1

  42. P1

  43. P1

  44. P1

  45. Good or Very Good 69% FRL Recent Completers Accreditation Status Good or Very Good 56% FRL Type of Program Accreditation Status Addressing Different Learning StylesTeachers #7 Principals #4

  46. T7

  47. T7

  48. T7

  49. P4

  50. P4

More Related