Randolph-Macon College’s Education Program prides itself in preparing it’s teachers for careers in the fields they are prepared for. As part of this, RMC follows protocols to ensure teachers meet the requirements provided by the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) and the Council for the Accreditation of Education Preparation (CAEP).
Licensing and Accreditation
Licensing & Accreditation Information
The Education department at Randolph-Macon College administers an educator preparation program (EPP) that is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and approved by the Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) to prepare students in 14 teaching endorsement areas.
Teacher Licensure Disclosure
Federal regulations (34 CFR Part D, §668.43, 5-v) require higher education institutions to disclose to prospective and enrolled students which states’ licensure requirements are met by its professional licensure program(s).
Randolph-Macon College’s EPP fully meets the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) requirements for initial licensure in Virginia, but it may not meet the licensure requirements of other states, U.S. territories, or the District of Columbia. The EPP’s mission is to train educators who intend to teach in Virginia and no determination has been made regarding the completion of requirements in other states.
Anyone intending to teach in a different location is expected to consider licensure reciprocity or transferability conditions, as well as content and testing requirements, in that intended location prior to applying to the Teacher Preparation Program at Randolph-Macon College. It is incumbent upon such persons to consult the Education department chairperson about the feasibility of meeting those out-of-state requirements before applying.
CAEP Accountability Measures
In Fall 2019, Randolph-Macon College’s Department of Education was granted accreditation status by the Council for Accreditation of Education Preparation (CAEP) for a four-year period, ending on December 31, 2023.
CAEP requires all teacher preparation programs to report on the following measures related to impact and outcomes:
Impact Measures: Our graduates’ impact on student learning and development, or graduates’ effectiveness in teaching, satisfaction with employers with our graduates’ performance, and satisfaction of our graduates with their preparation.
Outcome Measures: Graduation rates, the ability of our graduates to meet licensing requirements, the ability of our graduates to be hired in the field in which they have been prepared, and student loan default rates.
CAEP Evidence of Success
Measure one: Completer Effectiveness
We measure completer impact on P-12 student learning and development and teaching effectiveness through our completer and employer surveys, focus groups, and employer summative evaluations. A completer survey is administered annually in the spring to recent (1-3 years out) completers. Also each spring, all program completers from the past three years are invited to participate in a focus group designed to discuss the ways in which completers understand and measure P-12 learning. Completers are also invited to share their employer’s summative evaluations, which give us insight into their teaching effectiveness.
The Virginia Department of Education released requirements for teacher evaluation in 2011. As part of these evaluations, administrators assess educators on student academic progress. Each year, teachers administer a pre-assessment to their students at the beginning of the year, set progress goals for students, monitor progress throughout the year, and implement a post-assessment to determine progress toward established goals. Administrators then rate teachers using the rubric to describe student academic progress. Our first indicator of our completers’ impact on students’ learning and development is this rating on the student academic progress standard.
To gather this data, we invited our completers to submit their summative evaluations to us. We obtained the performance reviews for 20 RMC completers from 2019-2022. Teachers are rated on a scale of one to four on each performance standard (1 = unacceptable, 4 = exemplary). All our graduates were rated proficient or higher on the student academic progress standard indicating a positive impact on student learning and development.
VA Teacher Summative Performance Assessment (2019 – 2022)
| Standards/Completers | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2019 Mean | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 2020 Mean | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 2021 Mean | 18 | 19 | 20 | 2022 Mean | Mean 2019-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Professional Knowledge | 3.55 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.18 | 3.00 | 3.47 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.07 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.43 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.20 |
| 2. Instructional Planning | 3.75 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.58 | 3.00 | 3.60 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.23 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.43 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.32 |
| 3. Instructional Delivery | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 3.00 | 3.60 | 3.30 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.23 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.43 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.33 | 3.38 |
| 4. Assessing Student Learning | 3.75 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.25 | 3.00 | 3.53 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.08 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.29 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.16 |
| 5. Learning Environment | 3.85 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.28 | 3.00 | 3.73 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.25 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.43 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.28 |
| 6. Professionalism | 3.67 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.56 | 4.00 | 3.44 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.35 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.43 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.36 |
| 7. Student Academic Progress | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.14 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.29 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.33 | 3.30 |
Additionally, regarding performance standard 7 on student academic progress (4.1), completers scored an overall average of 3.29 across all three years of data, with an average of 3.67 in 2019, 3.14 in 2020, 3.29 in 2021, and 3.33 in 2022. These scores indicate an above “proficient” rating.
Summary: Performance on Standard 7 – Student Academic Progress
- 2019 Average – 3.67 (Proficient)
- 2020 Average – 3.14 (Proficient)
- 2021 Average – 3.29 (Proficient)
- 2022 Average – 3.33 (Proficient)
- Overage Average – 3.30 (Proficient)
VEAC Completer Surveys
Starting in 2021 the EPP began using the VEAC survey to collect data on completers through the completer survey. The item in the survey that aligns to completer effectiveness (R.4.1) is: “Based on your preparation, how would you rate your performance in each of these teaching areas: – work results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress.”
Response options ranged from 1 (low) to 4 (high) with these descriptors: “Unacceptable, Developing/Needs Improvement, Proficient, Exemplary.”
A total of 29 individuals who completed our program between 2018-2021 responded to the survey. For the completer effectiveness item, the EPP mean was 3.24. Looking at frequencies, the majority of respondents (n=15; 52%) rated themselves as Proficient. A number (n=10, 34%) rated their ability as Exemplary in this area. Only 4 respondents (15%) thought they were Developing/Needed Improvement. None of the respondents indicated they thought their performance was Unacceptable.
VEAC Employer Surveys
Starting in 2021 the EPP began using the VEAC survey to collect data on completers through the employer survey. The item in the survey that aligns to completer effectiveness (R4.1) is “please rate the completer’s performance on each of the following: their work results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress”
Response options ranged from 1 (low) to 4 (high) with these descriptors: “Unacceptable, Developing/Needs Improvement, Proficient, Exemplary.”
A total of 28 employers responded to the survey. For the completer effectiveness item, the EPP mean was 3.29. Looking at frequencies, the majority of respondents (n=17; 61%) rated completers as Proficient. A number (n=10, 36%) rated completer ability as Exemplary in this area. Only 1 employer (5%) rated the completer Developing/Needed Improvement. None of the respondents indicated they thought completer performance was Unacceptable.
Completer Focus Groups
Each spring, we invite completers in their first, second and third year teaching to participate in focus groups designed to discuss the ways in which completers understand and measure P-12 student learning. Over the past three years (2020-2022), we have had 19 completers participate in our focus groups, and each of our programs was represented in the participants. Participants included:
- 2020 Focus Group
- 3 Elementary, 4 Secondary, 1 Music, 2 Special Education
- 2021 Focus Group
- 4 Elementary
- 2022 Focus Group
- 1 Elementary, 4 Secondary
Qualitative Data from 2022 Focus Group
| Focus Group Question | Completer Responses |
|---|---|
| How do you know students are learning? | 1. Exit tickets, formative assessments; 2. Meeting SOLs, 3. Conversations with them - when they tell us they remember something and how to apply it in a different way; 4. Quantitative - standardized testing data; 5. Qual - how thy are interacting in class; 6. Students asking questions in class; 7. Struggles with social emotional learning, not sure they are listening, but then they repeat things (which shows they are learning) |
| How do you measure student progress? | 1. Canvas - scores and number of attempts; 2. PALs assessment, Smart goal, keeping track of spelling; 3. Confidence; 4. Numbers of tests do not always show growth, so confidence in answering things shows learning rather than test scores; 5. Self-reflection - keeping track of their own learning; 6. Data tracking; 7. Dan Mulligans thinking routine; 8. Measuring progress/growth |
| What strategies have you found beneficial for measuring student progress? | 1. Beginning of semester - students don't want to reflect out loud - private ranking on paper, more verbal, public as the semester goes on when they are more comfortable; 2. Have to know kids - interview style for assessment sometimes necessary (elementary); 3. Relying on mentor; 4. Mentor provided support for bagpipe management; 5. Observing other teachers, borrowing things from other teachers (and sharing!); 6. Treating them like adults and having them be responsible for their own learning; 7. Positive phone calls home: communicating with parents early to find what way they'd like to be contacted; 8. Positive reinforcement. |
| What strategies have you changed? | 1. Test anxiety - students not always doing better on assessments; trying to do mastery connect instead; trying to add in more participation grades; 2. Credit for showing work; 3. Benchmarks - participation scores, shows growth charts so students can see growth instead of focusing on total scores - making them low risk and putting the learning in their hands has been successful; 4. Stopped taking off points for late work; resulted in students turning in more work and allowed her to focus on growth; 5. Grading changes - stopped fluffing grades; 6. Struggled with and overcome behavior. |
| What factors do you consider an academic achievement? | 1. Not grades, students might have a rough day, track right and wrong answers on tests, reuse questions that students struggled with (item analysis); 2. Looking for improvement on next assessment - growth; 3. When kids are able to apply learning in a new area - transfer; 4. Study skills - keeping track of deadlines and asking for help; 5. Students who ask for help and communicate are much higher achievers; 6. Follow though, being self sufficient; 7 Gauge peer-to-peer interaction |
| What factors impede your students' learning? | 1. Behavior problems, basic needs (hungry, tired); 2. Trauma; 3. Motivation; 4. Family factors (divorce, death), external factors; 5. Self-efficacy; 6. Great to find out what makes a kid struggle and help them overcome those struggles; 7. Kids refusing to learn; 8. Don't think math is important, trying to explain why things are important outside of the classroom; 9. Classroom management issues; 10. Parents not caring. |
| How is performance standard #7 goal tied to your students' learning and achievement? | 1. SMART goal - spelling for entire 2nd grade; 2. Collect exit tickets and other formative assessments and use data to adjust lesson for next day; 3. Trying to add in more labs and PBL into Units - this has made learning more fun for students, has helped them be able to apply things in different areas; 4. Tracking data throughout the year - focusing on one class has made it more manageable; 5. Improve reading levels (middle school) program to track student lexile level, vary levels for assignments; 6. Smart goal helping to focus on student reach mastery; 7. Goal ensuring that content is included in many different ways (formative, assignments, tests, etc.). |
Measure two: Satisfaction of employers and stakeholder involvement
We measure employer satisfaction using VEAC surveys that are sent to the administrators of completers from the last four years. Using a sample that spans multiple years is the best way to ensure that all of our programs are represented in our data. The VEAC survey asks employers to rate completers on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 4 (exemplary) on specific items related to the InTASC standards. The survey also provides an opportunity for employers to comment on the completer’s performance in an open-ended question.
The VEAC survey results for 2021-2022, which was the first year we participated, indicate that employers rated our completers on average between a 3.29 and 3.54 in all 14 areas, meaning that all scores are between “Proficient” and “Exemplary” in all areas. On the overall satisfaction item, which asks: “Based on your experience with this teacher, what best describes the extent to which they were ready to meet the needs of students in your school?” Respondent employers could respond “Fully ready (able to have an immediate impact on student learning), Mostly ready (able to successfully meet the needs of most students,” “Moderately ready (in order to be successful, needed additional training, support, and coaching beyond what is typically provided to beginning teachers),” “Minimally ready (limited success meeting the needs of students and improving outcomes even with additional supports)” or “Not ready (unable to meet the needs of students even with additional supports)” employers rated our candidates an average of 4.54 on a 5-point scale, indicating that candidates are either “Fully ready” or “Mostly ready.” The full report of the findings can be found here.
In addition to collecting survey data, we also invite completers to provide their employer’s summative evaluation, which gives us insight into how employers are formally rating completers on the Virginia Uniform Performance Standards for Teachers Summative Assessment. This assessment rates completers in the following seven areas: professional knowledge, instructional planning, instructional delivery, assessment of/and for student learning, learning environment, professionalism, and student academic progress. Results of these summative evaluations are included below.
2020 Summative Evaluation Data
| Licensure area | Std 1 | Std 2 | Std 3 | Std 4 | Std 5 | Std 6 | Std 7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary | Dev/NI | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Secondary Spanish | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Elementary | Prof/Exem | Prof/Exem | Prof/Exem | Prof/Exem | Exem | Prof/Exem | Exem | Rehire |
| Elementary | Prof | Exem | Exem | Prof | Exem | Exem | Prof | Rehire |
| SPED | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Secondary English | Prof | Exem | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Secondary English | Prof | Dev | Prof | Prof | Dev | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
2021 Summative Evaluation Data
| Licensure area | Std 1 | Std 2 | Std 3 | Std 4 | Std 5 | Std 6 | Std 7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary | Exem | Prof | Exem | Prof | Exem | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Sec English / SPED | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Prof | Exem | Rehire |
| Elementary | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Exem | Prof | Rehire |
| Elementary | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Elementary | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Exem | Rehire |
| SPED | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Exem | Prof | Rehire |
| Secondary English | Prof | Exem | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
2022 Summative Evaluation Data
| Licensure area | Std 1 | Std 2 | Std 3 | Std 4 | Std 5 | Std 6 | Std 7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Secondary History | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Exem | Rehire |
| Secondary Math | Prof | Prof | Exem | Prof | Prof | Prof | Prof | Rehire |
| Elementary | N/a | Exem | Exem | N/a | Exem | Exem | Prof | Rehire |
Evaluation Frequencies
- Standard 1 – 3 exem (18%), 1 dev (6%), 14 prof (76%)
- Standard 2 – 6 exem (33%), 1 dev (6%), 11 prof (61%)
- Standard 3 – 5 exem (28%), 13 prof (72%)
- Standard 4 – 2 exem (12%), 15 prof (88%)
- Standard 5 – 6 exem (33%), 1 dev (6%), 11 prof (61%)
- Standard 6 – 5 exem (28%), 13 prof (72%)
- Standard 7 – 4 exem (22%), 14 prof (78%)
NOTE: In order to maintain confidentiality, the data are not disaggregated by factors of gender, race, and endorsement areas due to small numbers of students in the Randolph-Macon College Teacher Preparation Programs.
Our stakeholders include faculty in the education department, including adjunct faculty, faculty in other disciplines across campus, including those from departments that represent endorsement areas, college administrators, school partners, including K-12 teachers and administrators, and alumni. Both internal and external stakeholders are represented on the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC), which reviews candidates’ performance and eligibility for the programs, and engages in continuous improvement, planning and problem solving. The TPC meets five times per year and provides important feedback to the EPP for program improvements.
We also involve our Alumni Board, which is made up of alumni from all programs and in all stages of their teaching career, in our continuous improvement processes. The board meets at least twice a year and is chaired by a department-appointed alum.
The Department has formalized Memoranda of Understanding with the following school districts in Virginia:
- Hanover County Public Schools
- Henrico County Public Schools
- Richmond City Public Schools
- Caroline County Public Schools
- Petersburg City Public Schools
- King William County Public Schools
- Virtual Virginia
Measure three: candidate competency at completion
100% of our graduates pass the Praxis Core Math and VCLA exams for the state of Virginia, From 2014-2019, 100% of our graduates passed their Praxis subject assessments. In 2020, our programs were approved for a modification request from the VDOE due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This modification request allowed us to license completers without passing assessments for one year. Once they were awarded the one-year license, it was up to them and their employers how they would proceed. In 2021, we had one completer not pass their praxis subject assessment. Similarly in 2022, we had one completer not pass their praxis subject assessment.
| Cohort Year | Number (N) | Praxis Core Math Assessment | Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment (VCLA) | Praxis Subject Assessment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 100% | 100% | 90% | ||||
| 2021 | 20 | 100% | 100% | 95% | ||||
| 2020 | 16 | 100% | 100% | 75% | ||||
| 2019 | 22 | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| 2018 | 26 | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| 2017 | 11 | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| 2016 | 10 | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| 2015 | 20 | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||||
| 2014 | 13 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
NOTE: In order to maintain confidentiality, the data are not disaggregated by factors of gender, race, and endorsement areas due to small numbers of students in the Randolph-Macon Teacher Preparation Programs
In addition to reviewing the licensing exams, we also assess completer competency using an E-portfolio assessment completed during their student teaching experience. The purpose of the E-Portfolio is to showcase candidate learning across all 10 InTASC standards. Candidates are rated on a scale from 1 (Unacceptable) to 4 (Exemplary). Because it is summative, it is used to assess program effectiveness as well as candidates’ readiness for the profession. In the past three academic years, our completers have met our expectations on this assessment. In academic year 2018-2019 and academic year 2019-2020, the average scores exceeded a 3.5 rating on every standard. In academic year 2020-2021, averages scores on standards 1, 2, 4 and 5 fell below 3.5. However, all scores were still above 3.0 (Proficient). In academic year 21-22, candidates improved on indicators 1, 2 and 5, though they fell slightly below 3.5 benchmark on indicators 7-10. However, all scores are still well above 3.0, which our department defines as proficient.
E-Portfolio Assessment Averages by Academic Year
| InTASC Indicators | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n=22 | n=16 | n=19 | n=10 | |||||
| Standard #1 Learner Development | 3.84 | 3.97 | 3.26 | 3.5 | ||||
| Standard #2 Learning Differences | 3.77 | 3.84 | 3.42 | 3.8 | ||||
| Standard #3 Learning Environments | 3.82 | 3.91 | 3.63 | 3.8 | ||||
| Standard #4: Content Knowledge | 3.75 | 3.84 | 3.32 | 3.4 | ||||
| Standard #5 Application of Content | 3.96 | 3.96 | 3.47 | 3.6 | ||||
| Standard #6 Assessment | 3.82 | 3.87 | 3.68 | 3.6 | ||||
| Standard #7 Planning for Instruction | 3.86 | 3.91 | 3.68 | 3.4 | ||||
| Standard #8 Instructional Strategies | 3.93 | 3.71 | 3.63 | 3.45 | ||||
| Standard #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice | 3.89 | 3.88 | 3.84 | 3.35 | ||||
| Standard #10 Leadership and Collaboration | 3.86 | 3.97 | 3.74 | 3.3 |
Measure four: Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have been prepared
All of our completers are eligible for hire in the state of Virginia and those states with whom VA has reciprocity. We define the ability of our completers to be hired as those who seek a teaching position upon graduation. The percentage of all program completers employed upon graduation in years 2016-2022 is 100%. Prior to that it was 90% in 2015 and 92% in 2014.
| Cohort Year | Number (N) | Job Placement Rates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 100% | ||||||
| 2021 | 18 | 100% | ||||||
| 2019 | 16 | 100% | ||||||
| 2018 | 22 | 100% | ||||||
| 2017 | 26 | 100% | ||||||
| 2016 | 11 | 100% | ||||||
| 2015 | 20 | 90% | ||||||
| 2014 | 13 | 92% |
NOTE: In order to maintain confidentiality, the data are not disaggregated by factors of gender, race, and endorsement areas due to small numbers of students in the Randolph-Macon Teacher Preparation Programs
Accredited Programs
In Fall 2019, the following programs were reviewed and fully accredited at the initial-licensure level by the Council for Accreditation for Education Preparation (CAEP):
- Elementary Education PreK-6 – Undergraduate minor
- English Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Foreign Language PreK-12 – French – Undergraudate minor
- Foreign Langauge PreK-12 – German – Undergraduate minor
- Foreign Language PreK-12 – Latin – Undergraduate minor
- Foreign Language PreK-12 – Spanish – Undergraduate minor
- History and Social Sciences Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Mathematics Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Music Education – Choral PreK-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Music Education – Instrumental PreK-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Science – Biology Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Science – Chemistry Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Science – Physics Grades 6-12 – Undergraduate minor
- Special Education General Curriculum – K-12 – Undergraduate minor
Additionally, the department has recently added an Elementary Education PreK-6 Undergraduate major, which will be part of then next CAEP review.