2022 CAEP Annual Reporting Measures

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.

Click here to read more about Boise State’s accreditation status on the CAEP website.

Click here to review all CAEP accredited providers by state and/or provider name on the CAEP website.

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) from AIMS, Boise State University

Note: there was no annual report submitted for 2013. We strive to ensure all our content is accessible. If you need the annual reports in another format to fully access the information, please contact Katie Mathias at katiemathias@boisestate.edu.

Year	Report Link (PDFs)
2022	2022 Annual Report
2021	2021 Annual Report
2020	2020 Annual Report
2019	2019 Annual Report
2018	2018 Annual Report
2017	2017 Annual Report
2016	2016 Annual Report
2015	2015 Annual Report
2014	2014 Annual Report
2012	2012 Annual Report
2011	2011 Annual Report

Click here to learn more about the CAEP annual report and accreditation standards and processes on the CAEP website.

For additional questions about Boise State Educator Preparation Programs accreditation and annual reporting processes, please contact Dr. Sherry Dismuke, Assistant Dean for Teacher Education, (208) 426-1991, cheryledismuke@boisestate.edu.

Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)

Boise State continued its Completer Case Study Studying Practice and Student Learning work in 2020-2021. This study adds to data collected in 2014-2015, 2017-2018, 2019-2020.

1. Impact on P-12 Learning and Development (Component 4.1)

Starting in 2015-2016 initial Certification completers engaged in a direct unit study called Studying, Practice and Student Learning, which is similar to their Pre Service performance assessment. Completers planned and enacted an inclusive unit of study, analyzed formative and summative student data and learning outcomes (SLO’s) and reflected and responded to their student data through improvement-aimed goal-setting. This measure was repeated in 2017-2018, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. We are on track to repeat this study again during the 2022-23 school year with a new cohort of first and second year teachers.

For more information about the Studying Practice and Student Learning project, visit Boise State research increases teacher retention rates in Idaho to learn from the researchers and participants themselves, and see the study in action.

Impact on Student Learning 2021-2022
For the first time the Idaho State Board of Education is piloting the collection of student achievement data as a metric for Educator Preparation Programs. The State Board reported 94% of Boise State completers had a majority of their students meet measurable student achievement / student success indicator targets during their first year of teaching.

2. Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness (Component 4.2)

Aligned with Danielson’s Framework For Teaching (FFT), initial certification completers were evaluated by their principals for teacher effectiveness. According to data collected by the Idaho State Board of Education, Boise State first year teachers had an average of 99.96% of the 22 components on the state evaluation framework rated as satisfactory.

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) observation 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.

Click here to review previous results from the alumni and employer surveys for initial programs.

3. Satisfaction of Employers (Component 4.3 | A.4.1)

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 working with p-12 students and their families.

Overall, the mean scores indicate that employers evaluate our preparation programs to be proficient and above. Employers reported a sharp increase in completers that scored with distinction in both Content and Pedagogical Knowledge (13% to 29%) and Instructional Practice (15% to 25%).

We continue to monitor preparation for English language learners across cohorts. This year’s survey data reported a slight improvement. This was encouraging considering that this year’s employers were reporting on first year teachers during the pandemic. Strategies for teaching language learners online were part of the professional development during this cohort’s student teaching semester.

2022 Employer Survey of Initial Completers from 2019-2020, n=71

Employer Survey Questions	Mean
1. The teacher/employee applies the concepts, knowledge, and skills of their discipline(s) in ways that enable learners to grow.	3.18
2. The teacher/employee uses instructional strategies that promote active learning.	3.18
3. The teacher/employee uses knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and learner development to plan instruction.	3.21
4. 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.	3.07
5. The teacher/employee chooses teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different learner needs.	3.14
6. The teacher/employee evaluates the effects of his/her actions and modifies plans accordingly.	3.07
7. The teacher/employee can encourage learners to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives.	3.13
8. The teacher/employee uses strategies that support new English language learners.	2.95
9. The teacher/employee helps learners assess their own learning.	2.96
10. The teacher/employee uses strategies that support learners with a wide variety of exceptionalities.	3.03
11. The teacher/employee honors diverse cultures and incorporates culturally-responsive curriculum, programs, and resources.	3.12
12. The teacher/employee has a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments.	3.05
13. The teacher/employee uses technology to enhance learning and learning environments.	3.20
14. The teacher/employee understands the value of working with colleagues, families, and community agencies to meet learner needs.	3.24
15. The teacher/employee uses self-reflection as a means of improving performance.	3.24
16. The teacher/employee maintains accurate records.	3.23

The 16 questions from the employer survey are aligned with the four Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) areas: The Learner and Learning, Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Instructional Practice and Professional Responsibility. This analysis provides an aggregate view of the survey results, and allows for a simpler comparison across alumni and employer satisfaction. The InTASC results are also used on the ‘front-facing’ employer and alumni satisfaction web pages because the information is more accessible for a general audience.

2022 Employer Survey of Initial Completers from 2019-2020, InTASC Categories

This table reports the percentage of responses on the 2022 Employer survey grouped by InTASC categories.

InTASC Category	Unsatisfactory	Basic	Proficient	Distinguished
The Learner and Learning	1%	18%	58%	24%
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge	1%	6%	63%	29%
Instructional Practice	1%	12%	62%	25%
Professional Responsibility	2%	8%	59%	31%

2022 Employer Surveys of Advanced Programs for Completers from 2019-2020

Employer survey question: Based on Boise State advanced program graduate performance, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the program in preparing graduates?

Description	Not at all prepared	Slightly prepared	Moderately prepared	Very prepared	Extremely prepared
Endorsement in Online Teaching n=5 Response Rate: 100%	—	—	—	20.0%	80.0%
Ed.S. in Executive Educational Leadership n=11 Response Rate: 69%	—	—	—	27.3%	72.7%
Master in Literacy, Language, and Culture n=5 Response Rate: 42%	—	—	—	80.0%	20.0%
Master in Educational Leadership n=8 Response Rate: 22%	—	—	—	50.0%	50.0%

4. Satisfaction of Completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)

Results for the 2022 Alumni Survey is in alignment with the Employer Survey that alumni are satisfied with their teacher preparation rating their program proficient and above in all areas. Preparation to teach language learners showed a slight improvement, but continues to be an area for improvement. Programs have focused improvements on teaching language learners in online and remote environments.

2022 Alumni Survey of Initial Completers from 2020-2021, n=31

This table reports the mean scores by questions responses on the 2022 Alumni survey.

Alumni Survey Questions	Mean
1. Teach the concepts, knowledge, and skills of my discipline(s) in ways that enable students to learn	3.03
2. Use instructional strategies that promote active student learning	3.06
3. Use knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and student development to plan instruction	3.06
4. Use a variety of assessments (e.g. observation, portfolios, tests, performance tasks, anecdotal records) to determine student strengths, needs and programs	2.90
5. Choose teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different student needs	3.00
6. Evaluate the effects of my actions and modify plans accordingly	3.19
7. Encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives	3.00
8. Teach in ways that support new English language learners	2.35
9. Help students learn how to assess their own learning	2.77
10. Teach students with a wide variety of exceptional needs	2.61
11. Honor diverse cultures and incorporate culturally responsive curriculum	2.81
12. Have a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments	2.94
13. Use technology to enhance learning and learning environments	3.13
14. Understand value of working with colleagues, families, community agencies in meeting student needs	3.23
15. Use self-reflection as a means of improving instruction	3.32
16. Maintain accurate records	3.13

The 16 questions from the alumni survey are aligned with the four Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) areas: The Learner and Learning, Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Instructional Practice and Professional Responsibility. This analysis provides a more aggregate view of the survey results, and allows for a simpler comparison across alumni and employer satisfaction. The distribution of scores are more spread/distributed across Basic, Proficient and Distinguished for the alumni survey than the employer.

2022 Alumni Survey of Initial Completers from 2020-2021, InTASC Categories n=31

This table reports the percentage of responses on the 2022 Alumni survey grouped by InTASC categories.

InTASC Category	Unsatisfactory	Basic	Proficient	Distinguished
The Learner and Learning	6%	36%	44%	15%
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge	3%	11%	63%	23%
Instructional Practice	1%	21%	54%	25%
Professional Responsibility	0%	14%	57%	29%

2022 Alumni Satisfaction Surveys for Advanced Programs

We surveyed the satisfaction levels of our four advanced programs. Overall, completers from all four programs reported feeling prepared for the professional roles they entered and obtained the specialized knowledge and skills needed to perform the responsibilities of their job.

2022 Alumni Survey for Endorsement in Online Teaching n=5

Response rate was 26% (5 respondents/19 graduates)

Description	Not at all prepared	Slightly prepared	Moderately prepared	Very prepared	Extremely prepared
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to personalize and/or customize learning activities in your online instruction?	—	—	20%	20%	60%
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to foster student motivation and engagement in the online classroom?	—	—	20%	40%	40%
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to align your instruction with appropriate technologies to support student learning in your online instruction?	—	—	20%	40%	40%
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to use a variety of technologies to facilitate communication, interaction, and assessment in the online classroom?	—	—	20%	—	80%
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to take a leadership role in communicating, educating and advocating within the larger community and to engage in processes of inquiry that are central to the field of online teaching and learning?	—	—	—	—	100%
How well did the endorsement program prepare you to improve educational outcomes for students?	—	—	—	60%	40%

2022 Alumni Survey for Ed.S. in Educational Leadership n=16

Response rate was 46% (16 respondents/35 graduates)

Description	Not at all prepared	Slightly prepared	Moderately prepared	Very prepared	Extremely prepared
How well did the program content prepare you for your leadership position?	—	—	—	31.3%	68.7%
How well did the program internship prepare you for your leadership position?	—	—	18.8%	31.3%	50%
How well did the program prepare you to be an instructional leader?	—	—	—	25%	75%
How well did the program prepare you to improve educational outcomes for students?	—	—	—	25%	75%

2022 Alumni Survey for Masters in Literacy, Language, and Culture n=12

Response rate was 24% (12 respondents/49 graduates)

Description	Not at all prepared	Slightly prepared	Moderately prepared	Very prepared	Extremely prepared
How well did the program prepare you to critique and implement literacy curricula to meet the needs of all learners?	—	8.3%	8.3%	66.7%	16.7%
How well did the program prepare you to select and use appropriate assessment tools for student literacy achievement, and use that assessment data to inform instruction and evaluate interventions?	—	8.3%	16.7%	41.7%	33.3%
4. How well did the program prepare you to apply theory and best practice in your literacy instruction?	—	8.3%	8.3%	50%	33.3%
5. How well did the program prepare you to improve educational outcomes for students?	—	8.3%	8.3%	41.7%	41.7%

2022 Alumni Survey for Masters in Educational Leadership n=37

Response rate was 30% (37 respondents/122 graduates)

Description	Not at all prepared	Slightly prepared	Moderately prepared	Very prepared	Extremely prepared
How well did the program content prepare you for your leadership position?	—	2.7%	16.2%	56.8%	24.3%
How well did the program internship prepare you for your leadership position?	—	10.8%	21.6%	35.1%	32.4%
How well did the program prepare you to be an instructional leader?	—	5.4%	18.9%	51.4%	24.3%
How well did the program prepare you to improve educational outcomes for students?	—	—	24.3%	62.2%	13.5%

Outcome Measures

5. Graduation Rates

Boise State’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness 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.

Six-year graduation rate for 2015 cohort: 53%

Six-year graduation rate for 2014 cohort: 54.1%

Six-year graduation rate for 2013 cohort: 51%

Six-year graduation rate for 2012 cohort: 45.8%

Six-year graduation rate for 2011 cohort: 43.4%

Click here for the Common Data Set (CDS) compiled by Institutional Effectiveness.

Click here to access research reports on undergraduate retention and graduation.

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

Traditional Report, Title II reporting year	Number taking tests	Number passing tests	Pass rate (%)
2023 (2021-2022 completers)	207	206	99
2022 (2020-2021 completers)	205	194	95
2021 (2019-2020 completers)	94	93	99
2020 (2018-2019 completers)	111	110	99
2019 (2017-2018 completers)	107	106	99
2018 (2016-2017 completers)	168	167	99
2017 (2015-2016 completers)	136	136	100
2016 (2014-2015 completers)	176	176	100

Additional information about certification rates can be found in the measure below for placement rates.

7. Placement Rates: Initial Certification

*Title II report is not due until June 30, 2022. Tables will be updated at that time.

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.

Initial Placement Rates by Totals

The “grand total of completers” is the number of students who completed a teacher preparation program for initial certification.

The “count of completers who chose to certify after program completion” is the number of completers, and the “certification rate (count of completers who chose to certify/grand total)” is the percentage of completers who submitted an application for institutional recommendation to the associate dean for teacher education. Once the institutional recommendation for certification is signed by the associate dean, the completer’s application is forwarded to the Idaho State Department of Education for teacher licensure. These report the number of completers who applied for certification. It does not differentiate who went on to accept teaching positions.

The “placement rate excluding those choosing not to certify from grand total (placement count/grand total-not certified)” is the percentage of certified completers who were verified to be in teaching positions in the following year of completion (e.g., a 2017-2018 completer who can be verified in a teaching position in 2018-2019).

Note: The “placement rate” is calculated simply by dividing the number of completers who are teaching by the number of completers who completed certification. Some completers who certified went on as graduate students, chose not to work in education, or it was not possible to locate any information; these are still included in the denominator of the placement rate calculation.

Placement Rate	2015-2016	2016-2017	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021
Grand total of completers	162	178	169	200	180	231
Count of completers who chose to certify after program completion	136	161	151	183	162	218
Certification rate (count of completers who chose to certify/grand total)	84% (136/162)	90% (161/178)	89% (151/169)	92% (183/200)	90% (162/180)	94% (218/231)
Placement rate excluding those choosing not to certify from grand total (placement count/grand total-not certified)	89% (136/152)	82% (133/146)	87% (132/151)	80% (148/183)	79% (128/162)	86% (187/218)

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

Percentage (and counts) of placement areas for completers who accepted teaching positions in Idaho, out of Idaho, and out of the United States.

Placement areas	2015-2016 n=136	2016-2017 n=129	2017-2018 n=127	2018-2019 n=148	2019-2020 n=128	2020-2021 n=187
In Idaho	90% (123)	88% (113)	90% (114)	92% (136)	95% (121)	84% (158)
Out of Idaho	8% (11)	10% (13)	8% (11)	5% (8)	5% (7)	16% (29)
Out of United States	2% (2)	2% (3)	2% (2)	3% (4)	0	0

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.

Rates of Placement in Idaho

Percentage (and counts) of placement areas for completers who accepted teaching positions in Idaho.

Placement	2015-2016 n=123	2016-2017 n=113	2017-2018 n=114	2018-2019 n=148	2019-2020 n=121	2020-2021 n=158
Charter	7% (9)	6% (7)	5% (6)	7% (10)	13% (16)	8% (12)
In-state, Private	4% (5)	4% (4)	3% (3)	—	2% (2)	5% (8)
Region 1	1% (1)	3% (3)	1% (1)	2% (3)	2% (2)	1% (2)
Region 2	2% (3)	2% (2)	2% (2)	.5% (1)	–	–
Region 3	76% (94)	82% (93)	85% (97)	86% (128)	79% (96)	80% (127)
Region 4	7% (9)	3% (3)	4% (4)	3% (5)	3% (4)	3% (4)
Region 5	—	—	—	.5% (1)	1% (1)	1% (2)
Region 6	2% (2)	1% (1)	1% (1)	1% (2)	–	1% (1)

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.

Rates of Placement in Idaho’s Region 3

Rates (and counts) of placement areas for completers who accepted teaching positions in Idaho’s Region 3.

District	2015-2016 n=94	2016-2017 n=93	2017-2018 n=97	2018-2019 n=128	2019-2020 n=96	2020-2021 n=127
001-Boise Independent School District	19% (18)	15% (14)	8% (8)	20% (26)	32% (31)	26% (33)
002-West Ada Joint School District	39% (37)	41% (38)	40% (39)	26% (33)	31% (30)	34% (43)
003-Kuna Joint School District	3% (3)	11% (10)	9% (9)	9% (12)	3% (3)	6% (8)
072-Basin School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	1% (1)	—
131-Nampa School District	22% (21)	13% (12)	11% (11)	12% (15)	10% (10)	9% (11)
132-Caldwell School District	5% (5)	5% (5)	8% (8)	5% (7)	1% (1)	5% (6)
133-Wilder School District	—	1% (1)	—	1% (1)	—	—
134-Middleton School District	3% (3)	—	—	4% (5)	1% (1)	2% (2)
135-Notus School District	—	—	—	1% (1)	—	—
136-Melba School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	—	—
137-Parma School District	—	—	—	1% (1)	—	—
139-Vallivue School District	3% (3)	1% (1)	7% (7)	4% (5)	6% (6)	8% (10)
193-Mountain Home School District	1% (1)	5% (5)	2% (2)	1% (1)	7% (7)	6% (7)
221-Emmett Independent District	—	4% (4)	—	2% (3)	1% (1)	2% (3)
363-Marsing School District	—	—	—	—	1% (1)	—
365-Bruneau-Grand View Joint School District	2% (2)	1% (1)	2% (2)	1% (2)	—	1% (1)
370-Homedale School District	—	—	—	—	—	2% (2)
371-Payette School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	—	—
373-Fruitland School District	1% (1)	1% (1)	1% (1)	1% (1)	—	—
421-McCall-Donnelly School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	—	—
422-Cascade School District	—	1% (1)	—	—	2% (2)	—
431-Weiser School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	—	1% (1)
432-Cambridge School District	—	—	1% (1)	—	—	—

Initial completers disaggregated by Idaho licensure areas are included in the table below. These licensure areas are aligned with the Title II “Subject Areas” reporting section. For more information about Title II, please visit: Title II: Higher Education Act

Initial Completers by Title II Subject Areas

This table includes the number of initial completers by Title II-defined subject areas for both the traditional and alternative report cards. These subject areas are aligned with Idaho IDAPA categories to best identify the number of completers by Idaho licensure areas.

Note: Some completers earned more than one licensure so the total count exceeds the completer totals

Title II Subject Area	Idaho IDAPA Categories	Number of 2017-2018 Completers	Number of 2018-2019 Completers	Number of 2019-2020 Completers	Number of 2020-2021 Completers
Special Education	Blended Early Childhood/Early Childhood Special Education Pre-K Through Grade Six Or Blended Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education Birth Through Grade Three Or Early Childhood Special Education (Pre-K-3) Or Exceptional Child Generalist (K-8, 6-12, Or K-12)	30	26	31	42
Early Childhood Education	Blended Early Childhood/Early Childhood Special Education Pre-K Through Grade Six Or Blended Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education Birth Through Grade Three Or 1. Early Childhood Special Education (Pre-K-3)	12	14	11	17
Elementary Education	All Subjects (K-8) Elementary Endorsement	73	81	102	91
Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education	Any Completer Who Was Additionally Prepared With A Middle School Endorsement (5-9)	20	22	27	24
Secondary Education	Any Completer Who Was Prepared To Teach A 6-12 Secondary Endorsement Area	57	58	42	87
Art	Visual Arts (5-9, 6-12, Or K-12)	4	10	1	10
Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education	Bilingual Education (K-12)	3	2	0	2
Biology	Biological Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (5-9 Or 6-12)	6	5	3	12
Chemistry	Chemistry (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Physical Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (6-12)	4	2	1	1
Computer Science		0	0	0	1
Drama and Dance	Theater Arts (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Humanities (5-9 Or 6-12)	2	1	0	5
Earth Science	Earth And Space Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Geology (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (6-12)	1	0	3	2
English as a Second Language	English As A New Language (Enl) (K-12)	7	9	7	11
English/Language Arts	English (5-9 Or 6-12)	13	16	14	36
German	German	1	0	0	0
Health	Health (5-9, 6-12, Or K-12)	1	2	1	10
History	History (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Social Studies (5-9 Or 6-12)	16	20	11	1
Mathematics	Mathematics – Basic And/Or Standard (5-9 Or 6-12)	27	32	30	22
Music	Music (5-9 Or 6-12 Or K-12)	2	12	10	9
Physical Education and Coaching	Physical Education (Pe) (5-9 Or 6-12 Or K-12)	9	12	8	9
Physics	Physics (6-12) Or Physical Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (6-12)	3	2	2	0
Reading	Literacy (K-12)	32	28	43	37
Science Teacher Education/General Science	Natural Science (5-9 Or 6-12)	2	1	0	1
Social Science	Sociology (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Sociology/Anthropology (5-9 Or 6-12)	1	3	4	8
Social Studies	Social Studies (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Economics (6-12) Or American Government /Political Science (6-12)	12	9	4	8
Spanish	Spanish	7	1	3	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 the 2024-2025 undergraduate and graduate catalog listings.

Program Name	Program Level	Degree Level	Idaho Licensure
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 Educational Leadership	Advanced	Master’s	Administrator certificate, school principal 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, Elementary Education Certification	Initial	Baccalaureate	Exceptional Child Generalist (K-12) and All Subjects (K-8) (i.e., elementary education)
History/Social Studies	Initial	20 credit endorsement added to History or Government	Economics (6-12)
Sociology	Initial	20 credit endorsement added to History or Government	Sociology (6-12)
Elementary Education	Initial	Baccalaureate	All Subjects (K-8)
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
Master in Teaching – Secondary/K-12 Teaching	Initial	Master’s	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 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)
Master in Teaching, Elementary	Initial	Master	All Subjects (K-8)

8. Consumer Information: Student Loan Default Rates

Three-Year Student Loan Default Rate at Boise State and National Averages

Boise 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
2019 (released 2022)	1.0%
2018 (released 2021)	4.3%	7.3%
2017 (released 2020)	5.5%	9.7%
2016 (released 2019)	6.4%	10.1%
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

Average Teaching Salary in Idaho, and Starting Teacher Salaries in School Districts near Boise State

Note 1: The first row, “Idaho Average Teaching Salary”, is an average of ALL teaching salaries in Idaho (across pay scales and districts). The rest of the rows list STARTING teacher salaries for districts near Boise State.

Note 2: To the greatest extent possible, teacher salaries are linked to district salary schedules listed online.

School District	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022
Idaho Average Teaching Salary (estimated average of all teaching salaries compiled by NCES, selected years, 1969-70 through 2019-20)	51,551	52,875	—	—
Boise	$40,639 link to 2018-2019 Boise pdf	$40,639 link to 2019-2020 Boise pdf	$40,639 link to 2020-2021 Boise pdf	$42,061 link to 2021-2022 Boise pdf
Caldwell	$35,800 link to 2018-2019 Caldwell pdf	$38,500	$40,00 link to 2020-2021 Caldwell pdf	$40,369 link to 2021-2022 Caldwell pdf
Kuna	$35,800	$38,500	$40,000 link to 2020-2021 Kuna pdf	$40,369link to 2021-2022 Kuna pdf
Nampa	$35,800 link to 2018-2019 Nampa pdf	$38,500	$40,000 link to 2020-2021 Nampa pdf	$40,369 link to 2021-2022 Nampa pdf
West Ada	$35,800 link to 2018-2019 West Ada pdf	$38,500 link to 2019-2020 West Ada negotiated agreement page	$38,500 link to 2020-2021 West Ada negotiated agreement page	$40,400 link to 2021-2022 West Ada pdf

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.

Click here to visit the Idaho Certification Lookup Application website tool.

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.

Click here to visit the NASDTEC interstate agreement website.

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.

Click here to visit the ISEE website.

To reference the 2020-2021 SDE Assignment Credential Manual, go to the ISEE website > ISEE Manuals > 2020-2021 > 2020-2021 SDE Assignment Credential Manual.

References

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

“Boise State Nationally Recognized for Student Retention, Graduation Rates”, (2017). Focus on Boise State, retrieved from https://focus.boisestate.edu/article/boise-state-nationally-recognized-for-student-retention-graduation-rates/

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).