CAEP accreditation logo

The Fredrikson School of Education at the University of Sioux Falls is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the South Dakota State Board of Education until Spring 2023. The accreditation does not include individual education courses that the Fredrikson School of Education offers to P-12 educators for professional development, re-licensure or other purposes. 

Approved Educator Preparation Programs
Fredrikson School of Education Programs that lead to certification as educators were last approved by the South Dakota Department of Education in January 2017.

K-8 Elementary EducationK-12 World Languages - Spanish
K-12 Art5-12 English Language Arts
K-12 MusicLanguage Arts Education
K-12 Special Education5-12 Mathematics
K-12 Principal5-12 Science-Biology
K-12 Reading Specialist5-12 Social Science-History
K-12 Superintendent

 

In addition, the Fredrikson School of Education will submit documentation for approved K-12 Special Education and 5-12 Science-Chemistry programs for the Fall 2022 Review.

 

2020 Annual Reporting CAEP Impact Measures

4.1 Impact on P-12 Learning and Development

Teachers were assessed by their principals according to the Teacher Evaluation Summative Scoring Matrix for the Sioux Falls School District. This is a direct assessment of professional practice and student growth used by the school district for employee evaluation

The COVID-19 pandemic all but eliminated the Student Growth Rating for practicing professionals in the 2019-2020 school year. Student growth impact is primarily based on state-wide student tests, which the South Dakota Department of Education suspended in response to the pandemic. Only three principals were able to submit student growth assessments for newer teachers: two were rated "meets" and the third was rated "low". Our report from the previous year is summarized here to supplement unavailable data for 2019-2020. For the Student Growth Rating, measuring the extent to which student learning outcomes were met, 89% of the 18-19, 100% of the 17-18, and 100% of the 16-17 first-year teachers achieved Student Growth Rating of Expected or High.

4.2 Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness

Teacher Effectiveness ratings for first through third-year teachers who have completed the FSOE programs at USF are provided by the Sioux Falls School District. The ratings are part of the professional evaluation system of the master negotiated contract. The professional practice rating includes categories of Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. As a combination of Student Growth and professional practice ratings, a Summative Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Rating is derived: Below Expectations, Meets Expectations, or Exceeds Expectations. This feedback is delivered to practicing teachers each year by the principal and is the basis for continued employment and advancement milestones.

In 2019-2020, 9 first-year teachers were assessed by their principals as proficient in the professional practice rating. Eleven second-year teachers were assessed as proficient, and one was assessed as distinguished. Three third-year teachers were assessed as proficient, and one was assessed as distinguished.

The Summative Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Rating for first, second and third-year professionals was limited to the three professionals for whom student growth ratings were available. All three received a rating of Meets Expectations for 2019-2020.

Our report from the previous year is summarized here to supplement unavailable data for 2019-2020. For the Summative Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Rating, 100% of the nine 18-19 first-year teachers received ratings of Meets or Exceeds, and 100% of the 14 who were first-year teachers in 2016-17 or 2017-18 received ratings of Meets or Exceeds.

4.3 Satisfaction of Employers Initial Programs

Amidst the chaos of the COVID-19 impact on school districts, the FSOE decided not to survey principals on their level of satisfaction with our program completers. Although the assessment is required and valuable, we recognized the strain all principals were under. We have long-established collaborative and personal relationships with school district leadership. In other words, we felt they had their hands full and we would not impose an additional task to complete. Consequently, we do not have results from 2019-20 survey, and we present findings from the previous year in our present report.

In spring 2019 program employer surveys were received from 21 out of 27 first-year teachers who had completed their preparation in 2016-2017 for a 78% response rate; 14 of 24 second-year teachers' employers who had completed their program in 2015-16 responded for a 58% response rate and 17 out of 30 third-year teachers' employers responded to the survey for a 57% response rate. Sixty-nine out of 73 (95%) were satisfied with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities.

A4.1 Satisfaction of Employers Advanced Programs 

In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 4 out of 5 employers of Ed.S. in Educational Administration/Superintendent Program 2019-2020 completers for an 80% response rate. Four out of 4 (100%) were well satisfied or very well satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the completers' preparation with a 4.5 category mean. 


In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 4 out of 5 employers of Ed.S. in Educational Administration/Principal Program 2019-2020 completers for an 80% response rate. Four out of 4 (100%) were well satisfied or very satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the completers' preparation with a 4.5 category mean.

In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 2 out of 3 employers of M.Ed. in Leadership 2019-2020 program completers for a 67% response rate. Both were satisfied or well satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the completers' preparation with a 3.50 category mean. 

In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 4 out of 5 employers of M.Ed. in Reading 2019-2020 program completers for an 80% response rate. Three out of four (75%) were well satisfied and 1 out of 4 (25%) was well satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the completers' preparation, with a 4.75 category mean.
   

4.4 Satisfaction of Completers Initial Programs 

M.Ed. in Teaching: In spring 2020 program completer surveys were received from 29 out of 36 first-year teachers who had completed their preparation in 2018 - 2019 for an 81% response rate. Twenty-three of 53 second-year teachers who had completed their program in 2017-18 responded for a 43% response rate. Eighteen of 38 third-year teachers who had completed their program in 2016-17 responded to the survey for a 47% response rate. For each of the InTasc categories, the average response on a 1 to 5 scale was 3.0 (satisfied) or higher. Seventy-six out of 79 (96%) were satisfied with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities.

One hundred percent of the 9 M.Ed. completers who responded expressed satisfaction with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities. For the Spring 2020 complete survey, 5 out of 9 (56%) showed satisfaction in all categories for the M.Ed. completers.

Elementary Education: In spring 2020 program complete surveys were received from 29 out of 36 first-year teachers who had completed their preparation in 2018-2019 for an 81% response rate. Twenty-three of 53 second-year teachers who had completed their program in 2017-18 responded for a 43% response rate. Eighteen of the 38 third-year teachers who had completed their program in 2016-17 responded to the survey fora 47% response rate. For each of the InTasc categories, the average response on a 1 to 5 scale was 3.0 (satisfied) or higher. Seventy-six out of 79 (96%) were satisfied with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities.

One hundred percent of the 14 Elementary Education completers who responded expressed satisfaction with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities. The Spring 2020 complete survey showed satisfaction in all categories for the Elementary Education completers.

Special Education: One hundred percent of the 4 Special Education completers who responded expressed satisfaction with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities. The Spring 2020 complete survey showed satisfaction in all categories for the Special Education completers.

Secondary/K12 Education: In spring 2020 program complete surveys were received from 29 out of the 36 first-year teachers who had completed their preparation in 2018-2019 for an 81% response rate. Twenty-three of 53 second-year teachers who had completed their program in 2017-2018 responded for a 43% response rate. Eighteen of the 38 third-year teachers who had completed their program in 2016-2017 responded to the survey for a 47% response rate. For each of the InTasc categories, the average response on a 1 to 5 scale was 3.0 (satisfied or higher. Seventy-six out of 79 (96%) were satisfied with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsiblities.

One hundred percent of the 7 Secondary Education/K12 completers who responded expressed satisfaction with the preparation program relative to actual teaching responsibilities. The Spring 2020 complete survey showed satisfaction in all categories for the Secondary Education/K12 completers.

A4.2 Satisfaction of Completers Advanced Programs In summer 2020, program satisfaction surveys were received from 6 out of 7 completers of Ed.S. in Educational Administration/Superintendent Program for a 86% response rate. Six out of 6 (100%) were satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation with a 4.67 category mean. Eighty-three percent of completers were very well satisfied.

In summer 2020, program satisfaction surveys were received from 9 out of 11 completers of Ed.S. in Educational Administration/Principal Program for an 82% response rate. Seven out of 9 (78%) completers were well satisfied or very well satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation with a 3.67 category mean. Eighteen percent were very well satisfied.

In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 3 out of 7 completers of M.Ed. in Ed. Leadership program completers for a 43% response rate. Three out of 3 (100%) were satisfied, well satisfied, or very well satisfied with the preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation with a 4.00 category mean. Fifty-seven percent rated their level of satisfaction as very well satisfied.

In summer 2020 program satisfaction surveys were received from 5 of 6 completers of M.Ed. in Reading program completers for an 83% response rate. Three out of 5 were very well satisfied (60%), 1 out of 5 (20%) was well satisfied, and 1 out of 5 (20%) was satisfied with eh preparation program regarding the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation with a 4.40 category mean.

2020 Annual Reporting CAEP Outcome Measures

5. Graduation RatesInitial Program Advanced Programs 
6. Ability of completers to meet licensing and any additional state requirements  Title II

 

 
7. Ability of Completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared. Initial Program Advanced Program 
8. Student Loan Default rates and Consumer Information Fiscal year 2018: 4.2% Fiscal Year 2019: 4.5% Fiscal Year 2020: 3.4%Consumer Information