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 April 2023, Boise State was reviewed for both initial and advanced programs aligned with CAEP standards and was awarded accreditation through December 2030.
Click here to read more about Boise State’s accreditation status 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 | PDF Report |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 2023 Annual Report |
| 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 |
For additional questions about Boise State Educator Preparation Programs accreditation and annual reporting processes, please contact Katie Mathias, Director of Assessment and Reporting, (208) 426-4241, katiemathias@boisestate.edu.
Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)
Boise State continued its Completer Case Study Studying Practice and Student Learning. This study adds to data collected in 2014-2015, 2017-2018, 2019-2020, 2020-2021.
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. The study will continue fall of 2023 with a new cohort of first and second year teachers.
For more information about the Studying Practice and Student Learning project, visit this CAEP page to learn from the researchers and participants themselves, and see the study in action.
Impact on Student Learning: student achievement
The Idaho State Board of Education collects student achievement data on a yearly basis as a metric for Educator Preparation Programs. This data is provided to Boise State after June 30 each year.| Completer Cohort | Percentage of first-year teachers that met student achievement/student success indicator targets |
|---|---|
| 2021-2022 completers teaching for the first year in 2022-2023 | 98.10% |
| 2020-2021 completers teaching for the first year in 2021-2022 | 96.50% |
| 2019-2020 completers teaching for the first year in 2020-2021 | 94% |
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 who completed in 2021-2022 had an average of 99.37% of the 22 components on the state evaluation framework rated as basic or better.
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 2023 mean scores indicate that employers evaluate our preparation programs to be proficient and above.
We continue to monitor preparation for English language learners across cohorts. The last two years of survey data in this area show improvements. This year, employers reported an increase in completers that scored with distinction in the Learner and Learning InTASC category, regarding a teachers’ preparation in using strategies that support new English language learners.
2023 Employer Survey of Initial Completers from 2020-2021, n=83
| 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. | 3.09 |
| 2. The teacher/employee uses instructional strategies that promote active learning. | 3.14 |
| 3. The teacher/employee uses knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and learner development to plan instruction. | 3.17 |
| 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. | 3.01 |
| 5. The teacher/employee chooses teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different learner needs. | 3.02 |
| 6. The teacher/employee evaluates the effects of his/her actions and modifies plans accordingly. | 3.11 |
| 7. The teacher/employee can encourage learners to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives. | 3.10 |
| 8. The teacher/employee uses strategies that support new English language learners. | 3.02 |
| 9. The teacher/employee helps learners assess their own learning. | 2.98 |
| 10. The teacher/employee uses strategies that support learners with a wide variety of exceptionalities. | 3.10 |
| 11. The teacher/employee honors diverse cultures and incorporates culturally-responsive curriculum, programs, and resources. | 3.18 |
| 12. The teacher/employee has a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments. | 3.13 |
| 13. The teacher/employee uses technology to enhance learning and learning environments. | 3.18 |
| 14. The teacher/employee understands the value of working with colleagues, families, and community agencies to meet learner needs. | 3.20 |
| 15. The teacher/employee uses self-reflection as a means of improving performance. | 3.18 |
| 16. The teacher/employee maintains accurate records. | 3.16 |
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.
2023 Employer Survey of Initial Completers from 2020-2021, InTASC Categories
This table reports the percentage of responses on the 2023 Employer survey grouped by InTASC categories.| InTASC Category | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Learner and Learning | 1% | 17% | 54% | 28% |
| Content and Pedagogical Knowledge | 2% | 10% | 59% | 28% |
| Instructional Practice | 1% | 13% | 60% | 25% |
| Professional Responsibility | 3% | 10% | 54% | 33% |
2023 Employer Surveys of Advanced Programs for Completers from 2020-2021
The chart below shows the mean scores by question for employers of completers from the following programs: Educational Leadership, Executive Educational Leadership, and K12 Literacy. Overall, employers rated these questions as satisfied or above.n=14
Response Rate=42%
| Employer Survey Questions: Educational Leadership, Executive Educational Leadership, and K12 Literacy | Mean |
|---|---|
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data in a critical manner. | 3.6 |
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Employ data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments. | 3.6 |
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Lead and/or participate in collaborative activities with others such as peers, colleagues, teachers, administrators, community, and parents. | 3.8 |
n=3
Response Rate=60%
| Employer Survey Questions: Online Teacher | Mean |
|---|---|
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data in a critical manner. | 3.6 |
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Use appropriate applications of technology for their field of specialization. | 3.6 |
| As a result of their professional preparation, how satisfied are you that your employee was prepared to do the following: – Apply professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate for their field of specialization. | 3.6 |
4. Satisfaction of Completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)
Results for the 2023 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. Satisfaction in preparation to teach language learners continues to show improvement with completers reporting increased level of distinction in this category.
2023 Alumni Survey of Initial Completers from 2021-2022, n=37
This table reports the mean scores by questions responses on the 2023 Alumni survey.| Alumni Survey Questions | Mean |
|---|---|
| 1. Teach the concepts, knowledge, and skills of my discipline(s) in ways that enable students to learn | 3.00 |
| 2. Use instructional strategies that promote active student learning | 3.02 |
| 3. Use knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and student development to plan instruction | 2.97 |
| 4. Use a variety of assessments (e.g. observation, portfolios, tests, performance tasks, anecdotal records) to determine student strengths, needs and programs | 2.83 |
| 5. Choose teaching strategies for different instructional purposes and to meet different student needs | 2.70 |
| 6. Evaluate the effects of my actions and modify plans accordingly | 3.16 |
| 7. Encourage students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives | 2.83 |
| 8. Teach in ways that support new English language learners | 2.35 |
| 9. Help students learn how to assess their own learning | 2.54 |
| 10. Teach students with a wide variety of exceptional needs | 2.67 |
| 11. Honor diverse cultures and incorporate culturally responsive curriculum | 3.00 |
| 12. Have a positive effect on student achievement according to state assessments | 2.88 |
| 13. Use technology to enhance learning and learning environments | 2.89 |
| 14. Understand value of working with colleagues, families, community agencies in meeting student needs | 3.02 |
| 15. Use self-reflection as a means of improving instruction | 3.21 |
| 16. Maintain accurate records | 2.94 |
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.
2023 Alumni Survey of Initial Completers from 2021-2022, InTASC Categories n=37
This table reports the percentage of responses on the 2023 Alumni survey grouped by InTASC categories.| InTASC Category | Unsatisfactory | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Learner and Learning | 8% | 31% | 42% | 19% |
| Content and Pedagogical Knowledge | 3% | 18% | 58% | 22% |
| Instructional Practice | 6% | 22% | 51% | 21% |
| Professional Responsibility | 6% | 13% | 55% | 26% |
2023 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.
This table reports the mean scores by question responses on the 2023 Alumni survey for Educational Leadership, Executive Educational Leadership, and K12 Literacy.n=13
Response Rate=25%
| Alumni Survey Questions: Educational Leadership, Executive Educational Leadership, and K12 Literacy | Mean |
|---|---|
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that that you were prepared to: – Collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data in a critical manner. | 3 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that that you were prepared to: – Employ data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments. | 2.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that that you were prepared to: – Lead and/or participate in collaborative activities with others such as peers, colleagues, teachers, administrators, community, and parents. | 3.3 |
n=3
Response Rate=100%
| Alumni Survey Questions: Online Teaching | Mean |
|---|---|
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to: – Collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data in a critical manner. | 3.3 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to: – Use appropriate applications of technology for my field of specialization. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to: – Apply professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate for my field of specialization. | 3.3 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Assess student performance and make informed instructional decisions to meet learners’ developmental needs (cognitive, social, emotional, and physical) in online environments. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Address students’ individual strengths, interests, and needs to ensure learning is accessible to all learners. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Create environments that support effective communication and encourage positive social interaction, engagement and motivation. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Possess a deep knowledge of accessible, safe and ethical online behavior, modeling multiple strategies for students, teachers, and administrators. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Understand appropriate uses of technologies to promote student learning and engagement within the content | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Select, construct, and use a variety of formal and informal assessment techniques appropriate to the online environment. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Use multiple technologies to design course materials that are appropriate to the online environment, facilitate interaction and discussion, and model legal and ethical media rights and responsibilities. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Use a variety of instructional strategies, materials and technologies to support students-centered instructional practices that engage learners and enhance learning in the online classroom. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Understand concepts, biases, debates and processes of inquiry that are central to the field of online teaching and learning. | 3.6 |
| As a result of your professional preparation, how satisfied are you that you were prepared to do the following based on the Idaho Online Teaching Endorsement Program Standards: – Educate stakeholders and advocates to advance the online teaching profession. | 3.6 |
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 2016 cohort: 59.1%
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 following table 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 following measure for placement rates.
7. Placement Rates: Initial Certification
The placement analyses in the following table 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 | 2021-2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand total of completers | 162 | 178 | 169 | 200 | 180 | 231 | 229 |
| Count of completers who chose to certify after program completion | 136 | 161 | 151 | 183 | 162 | 218 | 214 |
| 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) | 93% (214/229) |
| 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) | 82% (175/214) |
Of those completers who chose to go into teaching, the placement analyses in the following table 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 | 2021-2022 n=175 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In Idaho | 90% (123) | 88% (113) | 90% (114) | 92% (136) | 95% (121) | 84% (158) | 92% (161) |
| Out of Idaho | 8% (11) | 10% (13) | 8% (11) | 5% (8) | 5% (7) | 16% (29) | 8% (13) |
| Out of United States | 2% (2) | 2% (3) | 2% (2) | 3% (4) | 0 | 0 | 0 (1) |
Of those completers who chose to go into teaching, the placement analyses in the following table 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 | 2021-2022 n=161 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charter | 7% (9) | 6% (7) | 5% (6) | 7% (10) | 13% (16) | 8% (12) | 15% (24) |
| In-state, Private | 4% (5) | 4% (4) | 3% (3) | — | 2% (2) | 5% (8) | 3% (5) |
| Region 1 | 1% (1) | 3% (3) | 1% (1) | 2% (3) | 2% (2) | 1% (2) | 2% (3) |
| Region 2 | 2% (3) | 2% (2) | 2% (2) | .5% (1) | – | – | – |
| Region 3 | 76% (94) | 82% (93) | 85% (97) | 86% (128) | 79% (96) | 80% (127) | 98% (158) |
| 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 following table 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 | 2021-2022 n=158 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001-Boise Independent School District | 19% (18) | 15% (14) | 8% (8) | 20% (26) | 32% (31) | 26% (33) | 36% (58) |
| 002-West Ada Joint School District | 39% (37) | 41% (38) | 40% (39) | 26% (33) | 31% (30) | 34% (43) | 34% (54) |
| 003-Kuna Joint School District | 3% (3) | 11% (10) | 9% (9) | 9% (12) | 3% (3) | 6% (8) | 2% (3) |
| 072-Basin School District | — | — | 1% (1) | — | 1% (1) | — | — |
| 083 – West Bonner School District | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1% (1) |
| 131-Nampa School District | 22% (21) | 13% (12) | 11% (11) | 12% (15) | 10% (10) | 9% (11) | 9% (15) |
| 132-Caldwell School District | 5% (5) | 5% (5) | 8% (8) | 5% (7) | 1% (1) | 5% (6) | 3% (5) |
| 133-Wilder School District | — | 1% (1) | — | 1% (1) | — | — | — |
| 134-Middleton School District | 3% (3) | — | — | 4% (5) | 1% (1) | 2% (2) | 2% (3) |
| 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) | 6% (10) |
| 193-Mountain Home School District | 1% (1) | 5% (5) | 2% (2) | 1% (1) | 7% (7) | 6% (7) | 2% (3) |
| 221-Emmett Independent District | — | 4% (4) | — | 2% (3) | 1% (1) | 2% (3) | 3% (6) |
| 271-Coeur D’Alene School District | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1% (2) |
| 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) | — | — | 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 following table. These licensure areas are aligned with the Title II “Subject Areas” reporting section. For more information about Title II, please visit thei website.
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 | Number of 2021-2022 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 | 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 | 7 |
| Elementary Education | All Subjects (K-8) Elementary Endorsement | 73 | 81 | 102 | 91 | 113 |
| Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education | Any Completer Who Was Additionally Prepared With A Middle School Endorsement (5-9) | 20 | 22 | 27 | 24 | 33 |
| Secondary Education | Any Completer Who Was Prepared To Teach A 6-12 Secondary Endorsement Area | 57 | 58 | 42 | 87 | 67 |
| Art | Visual Arts (5-9, 6-12, Or K-12) | 4 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 8 |
| Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education | Bilingual Education (K-12) | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Biology | Biological Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (5-9 Or 6-12) | 6 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 7 |
| Chemistry | Chemistry (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Physical Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (6-12) | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Computer Science | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Drama and Dance | Theater Arts (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Humanities (5-9 Or 6-12) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 |
| English as a Second Language | English As A New Language (Enl) (K-12) | 7 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 7 |
| English/Language Arts | English (5-9 Or 6-12) | 13 | 16 | 14 | 36 | 30 |
| German | German | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Health | Health (5-9, 6-12, Or K-12) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 7 |
| History | History (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Social Studies (5-9 Or 6-12) | 16 | 20 | 11 | 1 | 12 |
| Mathematics | Mathematics – Basic And/Or Standard (5-9 Or 6-12) | 27 | 32 | 30 | 22 | 40 |
| Music | Music (5-9 Or 6-12 Or K-12) | 2 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 12 |
| Physical Education and Coaching | Physical Education (Pe) (5-9 Or 6-12 Or K-12) | 9 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 8 |
| Physics | Physics (6-12) Or Physical Science (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Natural Science (6-12) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Reading | Literacy (K-12) | 32 | 28 | 43 | 37 | 51 |
| Science Teacher Education/General Science | Natural Science (5-9 Or 6-12) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Social Science | Sociology (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Sociology/Anthropology (5-9 Or 6-12) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
| Social Studies | Social Studies (5-9 Or 6-12) Or Economics (6-12) Or American Government /Political Science (6-12) | 12 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 10 |
| Spanish | Spanish | 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 |
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 2022-2023 undergraduate and graduate catalog listings.| Program Name | Program Level | Degree Level | Idaho Licensure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education Specialist in Executive Educational Leadership | Advanced | Education Specialist | 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 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, 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) |
| Dual Early Childhood Intervention, Elementary Education Certification | Initial | Baccalaureate | Blended Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education, 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 |
| 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% | 2.3% |
| 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.
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 2021-2022 SDE Assignment Credential Manual, go to the ISEE website > ISEE Manuals > 2021-2022 > 2021-2022 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).