Boise State received CAEP accreditation as an early adopter for a seven-year term from October 2016 to December 2023. This accreditation is granted for initial preparation programs. In 2023, Boise State will be reviewed for both initial and advanced programs aligned with CAEP standards.
CAEP Annual Reporting Measures: Information and Supporting Evidence
The tables appearing on this page include data and analyses for the eight CAEP annual reporting measures. These measures support all parts of Boise State’s accreditation process for educator preparation programs, but in particular standard component 5.4 for initial and advanced programs, standard components 4.1-4.4 for initial programs, and standard components 4.1 and 4.2 for advanced programs.
Annual Reporting Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 | A5.4)
|Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)||Outcome Measures|
|1. Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1)||5. Graduation Rates (initial and advanced programs)|
|2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2)||6. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial and advanced programs)|
|3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones |
(Component 4.3 | A.4.1)
|7. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial and advanced programs)|
|4. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)||8. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial and advanced programs)|
Annual reports are available in .pdf versions going back to 2011.
CAEP Annual Reports (all years), Boise State UniversityNote: there was no annual report submitted for 2013.
|Year of CAEP Annual Report||Link to .pdf of Report|
|2018||Click here to link to the 2018 Annual Report|
|2017||Click here to link to the 2017 Annual Report|
|2016||Click here to link to the 2016 Annual Report|
|2015||Click here to link to the 2015 Annual Report|
|2014||Click here to link to the 2014 Annual Report|
|2012||Click here to link to the 2012 Annual Report|
|2011||Click here to link to the 2011 Annual Report|
For additional questions about Boise State Educator Preparation Programs accreditation and annual reporting processes, please contact Dr. Carrie Semmelroth, Director for Assessment and Communications, (208) 426-2818, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)
Boise State has studied the impact of initial program completers through case studies focused on “Studying Practice and Student Learning” (SPSL). During 2014-2015, the unit focused on elementary teachers in grades K-6. In 2015-2016, the next iteration of SPSL included K-12 teachers from a variety of content areas and endorsement programs. This continued inquiry brought together EPP faculty and 19 completers in a community of practice to support the development, teaching, and critical analysis of a classroom unit of study.
During 2016-2017, Boise State EPP work focused on program improvement efforts focused on evidence from the completer case studies. Faculty also shared results with state and national audiences and initiated an innovative partnership among EPPs across the state. As a state coalition, Idaho Coalition for Educator Preparation (ICEP) applied for and received a $263,384 grant from the Idaho State Board of Education in connection with Eligible Partnership Subgrants for Title II Part A Subpart 3 in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Funding supported a pilot of Boise State’s completer study, Studying Practice and Student Learning, at the state level as a form of new teacher induction for 2017-2018. Data from three regions in Idaho (southwest, central and southeast) will be reported to the State Board of Education at the end of the funding cycle. Results from this study will also be shared on this website at that time (late summer 2018).
Preliminary analyses from the SAHE grant indicate Boise State completers continue to grow and develop. For example, observation data indicate that new teachers are well-started beginners who continue to add to their strengths and skills over time. Also, the preliminary student learning outcome data shows most completers were able to design and implement instruction in a unit of study that had an impact level of “effective” or “highly effective”.
1. Impact on P-12 Learning and Development
In 2015-2016, initial certification completers engaged in a directed unit study called the Studying Practice and Student Learning (SPSL), which is similar to their preservice performance assessment. Completers planned and enacted a unit of study, analyzed formative and summative student data and student-learning outcomes (SLOs), and reflected and responded to their student data.
From the case study, student learning outcomes (SLOs) demonstrated teachers’ ability to deliver instruction that impacted the learning of their students. Analysis at the whole class level found 75% of SPSL units were rated highly effective or effective for the percentage of students meeting target criteria.
Impact on Student Learning at the Whole Class Level, 2015-2016This table includes the effectiveness ratings for the whole class student learning outcomes for the percentage of students who met target criteria.
|Content Area Units||Number of Evaluated Instructional Units||Whole Class Student Learning Outcomes, |
|Whole Class Student Learning Outcomes, |
|Whole Class Learning Outcomes, |
|% Effective or Highly Effective|
|Whole class student learning outcomes||16||3||9||4||75%|
Impact on Student Learning at the Individual Level, 2015-2016This table includes the effectiveness ratings for the learning outcomes of students who received individualized differentiated instruction by our completers. The students who received this instruction were selected for differentiation by the completers based on observations, formative assessments, benchmark data, etc.
|Observed Area Targeted for Differentiated Instructional Support||Number of Students Provided Differentiated Instruction||Individual Student Learning Outcomes, |
|Individual Student Learning Outcomes, |
|Individual Student Learning Outcomes, |
|% Effective or Highly Effective|
|Academic, Above grade level||8||8||1||89%|
|Academic, Below grade level||21||14||7||67%|
|Social / Emotional||3||1||2||33%|
2. Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness
Aligned with Danielson’s Framework For Teaching (FFT), initial certification completers were observed for teacher effectiveness. Three classroom observations per completer were conducted by certified FFT observers, using the Framework for Teaching observable components on domains 2 and 3. Additional data sources included the Preservice Professional Year Assessment (PYA) and inservice principal evaluations. Observations were scored on the FFT rubric: Unsatisfactory (1), Basic (2), Proficient (3), and Distinguished (4).
Observation scores overall represent a rating of Proficient (3.0) or above. Particular areas of strength for the completers were 2a. Developing Respect and Rapport (3.2) and 2b. Establishing a Culture for Learning (3.1). These findings are also triangulated with high scores on the Tripod Survey of Student Perceptions for the related construct of Care (4.5) and Challenge (4.3) (see: the next table). Comparisons with the scores from the PYA demonstrate continued growth on the components of the FFT over time and principal evaluations were in agreement with university observers.
Observation Data on the Danielson Framework for Teaching Observable Components, 2015-2016
|FFT Components||Pre-service, Professional Year Assessment (1 total, final evaluation)||In-service, Observations Conducted during Completer Study by University Faculty (average of three over time)||In-service, Observation Conducted during Completer Study by Principal (1 total)|
|2A: Respect & Rapport||2.9||3.2||3.0|
|2B: Culture for Learning||2.9||3.1||2.9|
|2C: Routines and Procedures||2.8||2.9||3.1|
|2D: Managing Student Behavior||2.8||2.9||2.8|
|2E: Organizing Physical Space||2.9||3.1||3.0|
|3A: Communicating with Students||2.9||3.0||2.9|
|3B: Questioning and Discussion||2.7||2.9||2.8|
|3C: Engaging Students in Learning||2.9||3.0||2.9|
|3D: Using Assessment in Instruction||2.8||2.9||2.9|
|3E: Flexibility and Responsiveness||2.9||3.0||2.9|
The Tripod Survey of Student Perceptions (Ferguson, 2012) was administered as an additional measure of teacher effectiveness. Students in K-12 classrooms complete a survey of their perceptions of their teachers on seven metrics. The tripod survey was used in the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study of Teacher Quality (2012) and had the highest correlation with student achievement of any of the measures tested (Ferguson, 2012). The survey measures seven components (scales): Care (7 items), Control (4 items), Clarify (8 items), Challenge (4 items), Captivate (4 items), Confer (7 items), and Consolidate (2 items). A score of 5 indicates a high level of agreement with the items on the scale.
Tripod Survey of Student Perceptions, 2015-2016
|Early Elementary K-2||7||4.89||3.29||4.51||4.67||4.48||4.29||4.42|
|Upper Elementary 3-6||6||4.34||3.19||4.20||4.22||3.87||4.21||3.84|
Results from the tripod surveys found completers were well respected by their students across the seven components. On calculated means, all completer scores were between 3.29 and 4.47 on a 5-point scale. When comparisons were made between study teachers’ percent agreement and teachers from the MET Study (2010), whose student learning outcomes ranked in the 75th percentile, completers’ percent agreement matched or exceeded the MET study teachers in all constructs except Control.
Boise State Completer Tripod Survey of Student Perceptions Results Compared Against the MET Study Findings, 2015-2016*Results reported by mean for each construct on a 5-point scale
|Survey Constructs||Early Elementary K-2||Upper Elementary 3-6||Secondary 7-12||Boise State||MET Study|
|% Average Agreement||97||89||85||90||70|
|% Average Agreement||57||60||64||60||74|
|% Average Agreement||88||87||83||86||81|
|% Average Agreement||92||85||85||87||82|
|% Average Agreement||87||59||85||77||76|
|% Average Agreement||82||86||73||80||72|
|% Average Agreement||86||74||79||80||80|
Employer and Alumni Surveys
In 2014-2015, the Idaho Coalition for Educator Preparation (ICEP) group developed and validated an alumni and employer survey to inform the continuous improvement of Idaho EPPs. The surveys were developed for alumni who have graduated within the past three years from Idaho’s EPPs to measure how prepared they feel for teaching in a classroom, and to measure employer satisfaction of these programs. The surveys are aligned with the Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) evaluative rubric (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished) to maintain consistency across EPPs and evaluation items. The question items are aligned with InTASC standards. The alumni and employer surveys were validated through ICEP in the summer 2015 and distributed that fall across the state of Idaho to inform all EPPs.
Previous results from the alumni and employer surveys are available for initial programs.
Click here to review previous results from the alumni and employer surveys for initial programs.
In 2017-2018, Boise State piloted both the alumni and employer surveys at the initial and advanced program levels. The use of the same survey across the EPP unit allows for analysis of trends and patterns across levels and programs. With future administrations of this survey, collected data will allow for analysis of patterns and trends over time.
Results from these surveys are reported by the mean and median at the unit, initial and advanced programs levels.
3. Satisfaction of Employers
Through surveying the employers of our graduates across initial and advanced programs, Boise State intends to measure the degree to which employers are satisfied with completer preparation for assigned responsibilities in working with P-12 students (CAEP standards 4.3 and A.4.1).
The results from this pilot use of the employer survey at the unit level has provided two important findings for next steps. First, the lower reported mean scores for strategies to support new English language learners is consistent with scores found in the alumni surveys on similar items. This an area identified by the unit for program improvement which reinforces the importance of the ongoing work in this area. Second, the lower response rate (n=57) provides program coordinators with specific next steps for the next survey administration. The trends and patterns from these results will help inform any program changes as the unit heads into 2018-2019.
2017 Employer Survey of completers from 2014-2015 and 2015-2016
|Employer Survey Questions||Unit, |
|Initial Programs, |
|Initial Programs, |
|Advanced Programs, |
|The teacher/employee applies the concepts, knowledge, and skills of their discipline(s) in ways that enable learners to grow.||3.21(.65)||3.00||2.97(.59)||3.00||3.52(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses instructional strategies that promote active learning.||3.23(.63)||3.00||3.03(.59)||3.00||3.50(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and learner development to plan instruction.||3.33(.76)||3.00||3.09(.53)||3.00||3.68(.95)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses a variety of assessments (e.g. observation, portfolios, tests, performance tasks, anecdotal records, surveys) to determine learner's strengths, needs, and programs.||3.16(.69)||3.00||2.91(.64)||3.00||3.52(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee chooses teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different learner needs.||3.20(.71)||3.00||3.00(.72)||3.00||3.50(.60)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee evaluates the effects of his/her actions and modifies plans accordingly.||3.25(.67)||3.00||3.00(.62)||3.00||3.58(.58)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee can encourage learners to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.||3.21(.82)||3.00||3.00(.89)||3.00||3.48(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses strategies that support new English language learners.||3.02(1.14)||3.00||2.81(1.24)||3.00||3.35(.49)||3.00|
|The teacher/employee helps learners assess their own learning.||3.16(.70)||3.00||2.84(.63)||3.00||3.56(.58)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses strategies that support learners with a wide variety of exceptionalities.||3.13(.77)||3.00||2.84(.77)||3.00||3.52(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee honors diverse cultures and incorporates culturally-responsive curriculum, programs, and resources.||3.26(.71)||3.00||3.09(.73)||3.00||3.52(.60)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee has a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments.||3.13(.88)||3.00||2.90(.89)||3.00||3.50(.62)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses technology to enhance learning and learning environments.||3.22(.63)||3.00||2.97(.54)||3.00||3.57(.59)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee understands the value of working with colleagues, families, and community agencies to meet learner needs.||3.31(.72)||3.00||3.06(.72)||3.00||3.65(.57)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee uses self-reflection as a means of improving performance.||3.28(.67)||3.00||3.00(.62)||3.00||3.64(.57)||4.00|
|The teacher/employee maintains accurate records.||3.25(.63)||3.00||2.97(.54)||3.00||3.60(.58)||4.00|
4. Satisfaction of Completers
Results from the 2017-2018 pilot alumni survey support findings from the employer survey (as well from other assessments in the unit) that supporting new English language learners is an area of improvement for our EPPs. Overall, the scores reveal alumni evaluate our programs to be proficient and above in preparation.
2017 Alumni Survey of completers from 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017
|Alumni Survey Questions||Unit, |
|Initial Programs, Mean (SD)|
|Initial Programs Median||Advanced Programs Mean (SD)|
|Advanced Programs Median|
|Teach the concepts, knowledge, and skills of my discipline(s) in ways that enable students to learn||3.34(.88)||3.00||2.95(.51)||3.00||3.41(.92)||3.00|
|Use instructional strategies that promote active student learning||3.31(.88)||3.00||3.05(.60)||3.00||3.35(.92)||3.00|
|Use knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and student development to plan instruction||3.31(.90)||3.00||2.95(.60)||3.00||3.37(.94)||3.00|
|Use a variety of assessments (e.g. observation, portfolios, tests, performance tasks, anecdotal records) to determine student strengths, needs and programs||3.28(.89)||3.00||2.95(.69)||3.00||3.33(.92)||3.00|
|Choose teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different student needs||3.37(.89)||3.00||3.10(.45)||3.00||3.42(.94)||3.00|
|Evaluate the effects of my actions and modify plans accordingly||3.37(.89)||3.00||3.15(.59)||3.00||3.41(.94)||3.00|
|Encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives||3.25(.92)||3.00||3.00(.65)||3.00||3.30(.96)||3.00|
|Teach in ways that support new English language learners||2.72(1.01)||3.00||2.50(.76)||2.00||2.78(1.04)||3.00|
|Help students learn how to assess their own learning||2.99(.87)||3.00||2.50(.83)||2.50||3.08(.86)||3.00|
|Teach students with a wide variety of exceptional needs||3.06(.93)||3.00||2.95(.83)||3.00||3.08(.95)||3.00|
|Honor diverse cultures and incorporate culturally responsive curriculum||3.15(.93)||3.00||3.00(.56)||3.00||3.17(.98)||3.00|
|Have a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments||3.22(.96)||3.00||3.10(.72)||3.00||3.24(1.00)||3.00|
|Use technology to enhance learning and learning environments||3.41(.87)||4.00||2.85(.93)||3.00||3.52(.83)||4.00|
|Understand value of working with colleagues, families, community agencies in meeting student needs||3.36(.89)||3.00||3.10(.79)||3.00||3.40(.90)||4.00|
|Use self-reflection as a means of improving instruction||3.39(.83)||3.00||3.15(.67)||3.00||3.43(.85)||3.00|
|Maintain accurate records||3.27(.87)||3.00||2.85(.93)||3.00||3.34(.85)||3.00|
In addition to the Alumni Survey administered through the EPP, Boise State’s Office of Institutional Research administers a Graduating Student Survey to all undergraduate and graduate students graduating in a given academic year. The Graduating Student Survey was revised significantly for the 2015-2016 and later administrations. Results from 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 can be accessed via an interactive dashboard on the Office of Institutional Research’s website. The results can be disaggregated by college, department, programs, etc. Overall results from this university level survey indicates satisfaction from completers. Additional analyses of these data will be completed in 2018-2019 with the results from the pilot use of the alumni and employer surveys at the unit level. The data from this university level survey will provide an additional measurement to help inform program improvement.
Click here to access the 2016-2017 results for the College of Education from the Graduating Student Survey. Additional analyses by program can be viewed on the dashboard.
5. Graduation Rates
Boise State’s Office of Institutional Research regularly completes research and analyses on a variety of topics related to student success and other other university performance metrics. Data from these reports can be used to answer multiple questions related to graduation and retention rates.
The EPP quality assurance system at Boise State continues to improve and develop to inform programs with data and evidence. As the quality assurance system becomes more centralized and supported, both cohorted and non-cohorted programs will be better able to track candidates for retention and graduation rates.
6. Licensing and State Requirements
The table below includes pass rates for initial certification completers reported on Title II.
For more information, visit the Title II website:
Title II Summary Pass Rates for Initial Certification
|Group||Number taking tests||Number passing tests||Pass rate (%)|
|All program completers, 2016-17||168||167||99|
|All program completers, 2015-16||136||136||100|
|All program completers, 2014-15||176||176||100|
Additional information about certification rates can be found in the measure below for placement rates.
7. Placement Rates: Initial Certification
The placement analyses in the table below feature the count and percentage of initial certification completers who did and did not choose to go into teaching.
Placement Rates by Totals
|Placement Rate||2015-2016 Count/Rate||2016-2017 Count/Rate|
|Grand total of completers||162||178|
|Count of completers who chose to certify after program completion||136||161|
|Certification rate (count of completers who chose to certify/grand total)||84% |
|Placement rate excluding those choosing not to certify from grand total (Placement count/grand total-not certified)||89% |
Of those completers who chose to go into teaching, the placement analyses in the table below includes the count and percentage of completers who are teaching in and out of Idaho.
Rates of placement areas by the placed total (initial certification)
Count of placed total, n=136
Percentage of placed total
Count of placed total, n=146
Percentage of placed total
|Out of Idaho||11||8%||13||9%|
|Out of United States||2||1%||3||2%|
Of those completers who chose to go into teaching, the placement analyses in the table below includes the count and percentage of completers who are teaching in Idaho.
Click here to see a list of all six Idaho regions.
Count and Rates of Placement in Idaho (initial certification)
Of those completers who chose to go into teaching, the placement analyses in the table below includes the count and percentage of completers who are teaching in Idaho’s Region 3.
Click here to see a list of all six Idaho regions.
Count and Rates of Placement in Region 3 (initial certification)
|003-Kuna Joint District||3||3%||10||11%|
|131-Nampa School District||21||22%||12||13%|
|139-Vallivue School District||3||3%||1||1%|
|193-Mountain Home District||1||1%||5||5%|
|221-Emmett Independent District||--||--||4||4%|
|365-Bruneau-Grand View Joint School District||2||2%||1||1%|
8. Consumer Information: Boise State Educator Preparation Programs that Lead to Licensure
Boise State Educator Preparation Programs that Lead to Licensure*Programs align with 2016-2017 undergraduate and graduate catalog listings.
|Program Name||Program Level||Degree Level||Idaho Licensure|
|Education Specialist in Executive Educational Leadership||Advanced||Specialist or C.A.S.||Superintendent endorsement|
|K-12 Online Teaching Endorsement||Advanced ||Post Baccalaureate||Online Teacher (K-12) (added as endorsement)|
|*Master of Arts in Counseling (*CACREP)||Advanced||Master's||School Counseling|
|Master of Arts in Education, Literacy||Advanced||Master's||Literacy (K-12) (added as endorsement)|
|Master of Education in Bilingual Education||Advanced||Master's||Bilingual Education (K-12) (added as endorsement)|
|Master of Education in Educational Leadership||Advanced||Master's||Administrator certificate, school principal endorsement|
|Master of Education in English as a New Language||Advanced||Master's||English as a Second Language (ESL) (K-12) (added as endorsement)|
|Master of Educational Technology (MET)||Advanced||Master's|
|Mathematics Consulting Teacher Endorsement||Advanced||Post Baccalaureate||Consulting Teacher/Teacher Leader Endorsement|
|Art Education, K-12 or 6-12||Initial||Baccalaureate||Art Education, K-12 or 6-12|
|Biology - Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Biological Science (6-12)|
|Chemistry - Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Chemistry (6-12)|
|Computer Science- Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Computer Science (6-12)|
|Dual Special Education, Early Childhood Intervention Certification||Initial||Baccalaureate||Blended Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education (birth-3)|
|Dual Special Education, Elementary Education Certification||Initial||Baccalaureate||Exceptional Child Generalist (K-12) and All Subjects (K-8) (i.e., elementary education)|
|Economics, Social Science, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||Social Studies (6-12)-Economics|
|Elementary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||All Subjects (K-8) (i.e., elementary education)|
|Elementary Education TESOL/ENL||Initial||Baccalaureate||All Subjects (K-8) (i.e., elementary education) and English as a Second Language (ESL) (K-12)|
|Engineering- Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Engineering (6-12)|
|English Teaching||Initial||Baccalaureate||English (6-12)|
|French, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||World Language (6-12) French|
|Geosciences - Secondary Education Emphasis / Earth Science Teaching Endorsement Minor||Initial||Baccalaureate||Earth and Space Science (6-12)|
|German, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||World Language (6-12) German|
|Graduate Certificate - Secondary/K-12 Teaching||Initial||Post Baccalaureate||Licensure varies based on secondary content area emphasis|
|Health Teaching Endorsement||Initial||Endorsement only||Health Endorsement (grade varies based on certification)|
|History, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||History (6-12)|
|Master in Teaching in Early Childhood Intervention||Initial||Master's||Blended Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education (birth-3)|
|Master in Teaching in Special Education||Initial||Master's||Exceptional Child Generalist (K-12)|
|Mathematics - Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Mathematics (6-12)|
|Music Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||Music (K-12)|
|Physical Education, K-12||Initial||Baccalaureate||Physical Education (K-12)|
|Physics - Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Physics (6-12)|
|Political Science, Social Science, Secondary Education Emphasis||Initial||Baccalaureate||Social Studies (6-12)-American Government/Political Science|
|Spanish, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||World Language (6-12) Spanish|
|Theatre Arts, Secondary Education||Initial||Baccalaureate||Theater Arts (6-12)|
8. Consumer Information: Student Loan Default Rates
Three-Year Student Loan Default Rate at Boise State and National AveragesBoise State's Office of Financial Aid and Scholarships provides annual default rates for the university and national averages by request.
For more information about these rates, please visit the Financial Aid and Scholarships website: https://financialaid.boisestate.edu/
|Year||Boise State University||National Average|
|2016 (released 2019)||6.4%||Available Fall 2019|
|2015 (released 2018)||6%||10.8%|
|2014 (released 2017)||6%||11.5%|
|2013 (released 2016)||6.4%||11.3%|
|2012 (released 2015)||8.3%||11.8%|
|2011 (released 2014)||11.4%||13.7%|
|2010 (released 2013)||10%||14.7%|
|2009 (released 2012)||7.80%||13.4%|
|2008 (released 2011)||7.22%||13.8%|
8. Consumer Information: Starting Teacher Salaries in Idaho
Starting Teacher Salaries in Idaho and School Districts near Boise State
8. Consumer Information: Idaho Certification Lookup
The Idaho State Department of Education, Certifications and Professional Standards provides a certification lookup application tool on its website. This application allows for searches for educators who currently hold or have help Idaho certification.
8. Consumer Information: NASDTEC Interstate Agreement
The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) interstate agreement is a collection of over 50 individual agreements by states and Canadian provinces that defines which other states’ educator certificates will be accepted by that state.
8. Consumer Information: What can I do with my certification?
Idaho State Department of Education has created the Idaho System for Educational Excellence (ISEE), a K-12 Longitudinal Data System that helps to deliver information to stakeholders involved in education.
ISEE provides an assignment credential manual that crosswalks types of certification with specific types of education employment opportunities.
Bill and Melinda GATES Foundation (2010, December). Learning about Teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching. Retrieved June 2014 from metproject.org: metproject.org/downloads/preliminary_findings_policy_brief.pdf
Bill and Melinda GATES Foundation (2012). MET Project. Retrieved June 2015 from metproject.org: metproject.org.download/Asking_Students_Practioner_Brief.pdf
CCSSO’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (2013). InTASC: Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0. (C. o. Officers, Ed.) Washington DC.
Danielson, C. (2013). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Can student surveys measure teaching quality? Teacher Evaluation, 94 (24).