CAEP Accreditation Status
- Initial-Licensure Level Programs: Accreditation
granted Spring 2018 to Spring 2025 - Elementary Education
- Mild Intervention
- Secondary Education and T2M
- Math
- English
- Health/PE
- Social Studies
- Physics
- Business
- Visual Arts
- Spanish/Modern Language
- French/Modern Language (T2M only)
- German/Modern Language (T2M only)
- Theatre
- Music
- Art
- Chemistry (T2M only)
- Life Sciences (T2M only)
- Mild Intervention
- Elementary Education
- Advanced-Level Programs: Accreditation granted Fall 2021 to Spring 2025
- SLAM (Building Level Admin)
- District Level Administrator: Exceptional Needs
- On-site CAEP Visit for Initial-Licensure and Advanced Programs: Fall 2024
CAEP Accountability Measures
The Indiana Department of Education surveys Principals and all First and Second year Teachers to determine program impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth AND completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
2024 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2022-2023
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: <10
- Highly Effective: <10
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: <10
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 16
- Highly Effective: 7
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 23
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 6
- Highly Effective: 4
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 10
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 22
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 11
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 33
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 33
- Final Percent: 100%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2024 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 1 | 15 | 13 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 2 | 13 | 14 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 16 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 12 | 15 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 16 | 12 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 13 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 2 | 16 | 11 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 18 | 10 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 1 | 17 | 11 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 1 | 1 | 11 | 16 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 1 | 10 | 18 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 17 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
Principals are asked to provide feedback on all first and second year teachers. This information is then disaggregated by university of college and the IDOE provides this data to all Educator Preparation Providers. This data is reviewed and used to ensure employer and stakeholder satisfaction.
See Data for Advanced Programs
2024 Employer Satisfaction - Initial Prep
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 1 | 15 | 13 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 2 | 13 | 14 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 16 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 12 | 15 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 16 | 12 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 13 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 2 | 16 | 11 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 18 | 10 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 1 | 17 | 11 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 1 | 1 | 11 | 16 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 1 | 10 | 18 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 17 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
2024 Employer Satisfaction - Advanced Programs
District Administrator of Exceptional Needs (DAEN) Employer Satisfaction Survey
Analysis of employer evaluations for DAEN program graduates across 16 competency areas, with 4 employers responding. The survey is distributed every three years and respondents are anonymous. Because DAEN completers may not take jobs as Directors immediately after their completion in the program, many respondents have indicated they are not able to assess the completers since they are not functioning as a Director.
| Survey Question | Average Score | Score Range |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence-based leadership principles | 3.75 | 2-5 |
| Stakeholder collaboration for planning | 4.25 | 3-5 |
| Program alignment with mission/vision | 4.00 | 3-5 |
| Policy/law application | 4.50 | 4-5 |
| Ethical leadership | 4.75 | 4-5 |
| Systems-change strategies | 3.75 | 2-5 |
| Data-driven methods | 3.75 | 2-5 |
| Program evaluation | 3.75 | 2-5 |
| Access, equity, opportunity | 3.75 | 2-5 |
| Resource management | 4.00 | 3-5 |
| Professional recruitment/retention | 4.25 | 3-5 |
| Stakeholder collaboration | 3.75 | 3-5 |
| Conflict resolution | 4.00 | 3-5 |
| Addressing systemic inequities | 3.50 | 1-5 |
| Promoting equity/inclusiveness | 3.75 | 1-5 |
| Overall practices/dispositions | 4.00 | 3-5 |
School Leadership & Management (SLAM) Employer Satisfaction Survey
Analysis of 8 employer evaluations of SLAM program graduates, rating various competencies aligned with CAEP standards. The survey is distributed every three years and respondents are anonymous. Because SLAM completers may not take jobs as principals immediately after their completion in the program, many respondents have indicated they are not able to assess the completers since they are not functioning as a principal.
| Competency Area | Average Score | Score Range |
|---|---|---|
| Data collection and critical application | 4.63 | 4-5 |
| Research methodology understanding | 4.50 | 4-5 |
| Data analysis for school environments | 4.75 | 4-5 |
| Collaborative leadership | 5.00 | 5-5 |
| Technology application | 4.88 | 4-5 |
| Professional standards application | 4.75 | 4-5 |
| Instructional practice promotion | 4.63 | 4-5 |
| Data-driven instruction implementation | 4.75 | 4-5 |
| Program coursework application | 4.63 | 4-5 |
| Student learning impact | 4.63 | 4-5 |
| Professional practice application | 4.50 | 4-5 |
| Student learning development impact | 4.63 | 4-5 |
UIndy School of Education continuously reviews candidates completion and retention data, candidate licensure test pass rates, and Title II data to ensure that candidates are meeting program expectations and are ready to be recommended for licensure.
See Data for Advanced Programs
2024 Traditional Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2023-2024 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2023-24
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 16
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 11
- Institutional Pass Rate: 69%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 286
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1856
- Statewide Pass Rate: TBD
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 35
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 28
- Institutional Pass Rate: 80%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 1828
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 11611
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 41
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 34
- Institutional Pass Rate: 83%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2155
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1940
- Statewide Pass Rate: 90%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 42
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 33
- Institutional Pass Rate: 79%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2255
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1899
- Statewide Pass Rate: 84%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 36
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 32
- Institutional Pass Rate: 89%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2093
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1835
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
2024 Alternative Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2023-2024 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2023-24
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 34
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 31
- Institutional Pass Rate: 91
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: TBD
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: TBD
- Statewide Pass Rate: TBD
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 13
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 13
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 660
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 737
- Statewide Pass Rate: 93%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 6
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: n/a
- Institutional Pass Rate: n/a
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 737
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 678
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 765
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 677
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 611
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 563
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
2024 Completion and Retention Rates
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 11,214 | 318 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3,128 | 80 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 27.9 | 25 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 7,469 | 233 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 66.6 | 73 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 314 | 3 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 2.8 | 1 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 428 | 3 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 3.8 | 1 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
**Education Candidates - includes all students who in a given academic year were formally admitted to, enrolled in, or completed the institution’s education program.
Percentage of Completion/Graduation = Completion/Graduation Number DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage Retained in Education = Number Retained in Education DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Program Attrition] = Number of candidates who left education but remained at the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Institutional Attrition]= Number of candidates who left the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
Measure 3 on Advanced Programs
District Administrator of Exceptional Needs (DAEN)
No licensure exam is necessary for the Director of Exceptional Learners Program. Rather, because UIndy’s curriculum is approved by the state, the student must complete the coursework with a grade of at least B- in each course and an overall GPA of 3.0.
At completion, the candidate is required to show a minimum of 2 years of exceptional teaching in the area of mild interventions or special education, and the following signature assessments must be completed: 1) Assistive Technology Case Study (EDUC 627), 2) Family Inquiry Project (EDUC 619), and 3) Internship Rubric (EDUC 616). Each signature assessment addresses critical skills identified as essential for District Administrator of Exceptional Needs.
School Leadership & Management (SLAM)
Candidates must take 12 courses and maintain a minimum grade of B or higher, and maintain a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Each signature assessment addresses critical skills identified as essential for an administrator in School Leadership & Management. The following signature assessments must be completed: 1) EDUC 602 Mentoring & Coaching Data, 2) EDUC 603 School Equity Audit Data, 3) EDUC 604 Equity & Social Justice Project Data, 4) EDUC 605 Data Project Data, and 5) MSM 557 School Improvement Capstone Data.
In positions for which they have prepared. 100% of 2023-2024 UIndy Teacher Education Graduates were employed in teaching positions for which they have been prepared, or enrolled in graduate programs within six months of graduation. Candidates in Advanced Programs are largely employed in teaching and/or administrative positions in K-12 schools and are returning for additional training to ensure that they can meet the needs of these positions. Therefore, 100% of advanced program completers have secured a job.
Teacher Preparation Data
- 2024 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
- 2024 Candidate Licensure Test
- 2024 Candidate Selection Criteria
- 2024 Teacher Effectiveness
- 2024 Employer Satisfaction
- 2024 Candidate Satisfaction
- 2024 Traditional Title II Reports
- 2024 Alternative Title II Reports
2024 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 11,214 | 318 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3,128 | 80 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 27.9 | 25 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 7,469 | 233 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 66.6 | 73 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 314 | 3 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 2.8 | 1 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 428 | 3 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 3.8% | 1 |
| Percentage Total*** | 100 | 100 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
**Education Candidates - includes all students who in a given academic year were formally admitted to, enrolled in, or completed the institution’s education program.
Percentage Total = Percentage Completion/Graduation + Percentage Retained in Education + Percentage Program Attrition + Percentage Institutional Attrition = 100%
Percentage of Completion/Graduation = Completion/Graduation Number DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage Retained in Education = Number Retained in Education DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Program Attrition] = Number of candidates who left education but remained at the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Institutional Attrition]= Number of candidates who left the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
2024 Candidate Licensure Test
*Please check back later for details
Average Number of Attempts before Passing Indiana CORE Assessments (Praxis): Content and Pedagogical Knowledge*
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5621/0621 | Early Childhood Education | 104 | 1.1 | n/a |
| 5622/0622 | Elementary Education | 1,077 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 5624/0624 | Secondary Education | 722 | 1 | 1.1 |
| 5625/0625 | P-12 Education | 306 | 1.1 | <10 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5101/0101 | Business | 19 | 1.1 | n/a |
| 5362/0362 | English Learners | 22 | 1 | n/a |
| 5038/0038 | English Language Arts | 188 | 1.1 | 1.5 |
| 5543/0543 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention | 270 | 1 | <10 |
| 5115/0115 | Fine Arts—Instrumental Music | 55 | 1 | n/a |
| 5116/0116 | Fine Arts—Vocal Music | 38 | 1.1 | n/a |
| 5641/0641 | Fine Arts—Theatre Arts | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| 5134/0134 | Fine Arts—Visual Arts | 35 | 1.2 | <10 |
| 5165/0165 | Mathematics | 93 | 1.2 | <10 |
| 5206/0206 | Reading | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 4245/0245 | Science—Chemistry | 14 | 1.2 | n/a |
| 5571/0571 | Science—Earth/Space Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5265/0265 | Science—Physics | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5921/0921 | Social Studies—Geographical Perspectives | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| 5931/0931 | Social Studies—Government /Political Science | 39 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5941/0941 | Social Studies—World and US History Content | 161 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5174/0174 | World Languages—French | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5183/0183 | World Languages—German | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5195/0195 | World Languages—Spanish | 29 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 5008/0008 | Elementary Education: Math and Science Subtest | 1,210 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| 5007/0007 | Elementary Education: Reading LA & Social Studies Subtest | 1,184 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| 5551/0551 | Health Education | 11 | 1.1 | n/a |
*Program Completers as identified in Title II Report(s) during the 2022-2023 academic year (*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.)
Calculations are made for Average Scores, Average Before Passing, and Percent Pass on First Attempt as follows:
Average Scores = Total scores for all attempts by Program Completers DIVIDED BY Total Number of Attempts
Average Before Passing = Number of all passing attempts DIVIDED BY Number of attempts
Average Percentage Who Pass on First Attempt = Number of Completers (Number Test takers) that passed the test on the initial attempt DIVIDED BY Number of Completers (Number Test takers)
*PRAXIS I or CASA not required if candidate meets one of the following alternatives: a.) ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science; b.) SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math; c.) GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative prior to 8/1/11; d.) GRE with a score of at least 301 based on Verbal and Quantitative on or after 8/1/11; e.) Praxis I composite score of at least 527 based on Reading, Writing, and Math if taken prior to 9/1/13; or f.) Master's or higher degree earned from a regionally accredited institution.
2024 Candidate Selection Data
EPP Candidate Selection Criteria
|
Minimum Cumulative GPA Required for Entry in EPP |
State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | n/a | 2.70 |
| Alternative | n/a | 3.0 |
|
Minimum Cumulative GPA Required for Entry in EPP |
State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | n/a | 3.48 |
| Alternative | n/a | 3.35 |
*Includes both admitted candidates and program completers in any program leading to initial instructional licensure (traditional undergraduate, Transition to Teaching, etc.)
2024 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2022-2023
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: <10
- Highly Effective: <10
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: <10
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 16
- Highly Effective: 7
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 23
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 6
- Highly Effective: 4
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 10
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 22
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 11
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 33
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 33
- Final Percent: 100%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2024 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 1 | 15 | 13 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 2 | 13 | 14 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 16 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 12 | 15 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 16 | 12 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 13 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 2 | 16 | 11 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 18 | 10 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 1 | 17 | 11 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 1 | 1 | 11 | 16 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 1 | 10 | 18 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 2 | 14 | 13 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 18 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 17 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 2 | 11 | 16 |
2024 Candidate Satisfaction
Teacher Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
2024 Teacher Survey Results for the University of Indianapolis is below.
The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Teachers responded to each of the following:
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. understanding how learners/students develop and grow. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 26 |
| 2. meeting the content preparation and knowledge level expected of a beginning teacher. | 0 | 0 | 20 | 23 |
| 3. adhering to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 30 |
| 4. adhering to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 28 |
| 5. recognizing the importance of continued professional development. | 0 | 0 | 15 | 28 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. providing appropriate and challenging learning experiences. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 22 |
| 7. providing an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 31 |
| 8. providing a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 26 |
| 9. working collaboratively with school leaders and/or colleagues to promote safe and positive learning environments. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 27 |
| 10. differentiating instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 0 | 11 | 32 |
| 11. working effectively with students with all exceptionalities | 0 | 1 | 20 | 22 |
| 12. developing quality assessments to test for student understanding of lessons. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 22 |
| 13. analyzing student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 2 | 19 | 22 |
| 14. using appropriate strategies to effectively manage learning environments. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 22 |
| 15. integrating technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning. | 0 | 0 | 15 | 28 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me to recognize the importance of: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16. openly accepting suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 27 |
| 17. exhibiting ethical practice. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 27 |
| 18. working effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 26 |
| 19. working effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 4 | 27 | 12 |
| 20. working effectively with school leaders. | 1 | 1 | 18 | 23 |
| 21. working effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 19 | 24 |
| Description | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22. Indicate your overall assessment of how well you were prepared to teach by your educator preparation program. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 28 |
2024 Traditional Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2023-2024 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2023-24
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 16
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 11
- Institutional Pass Rate: 69%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 286
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1856
- Statewide Pass Rate: TBD
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 35
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 28
- Institutional Pass Rate: 80%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 1828
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1611
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 41
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 34
- Institutional Pass Rate: 83%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2155
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1940
- Statewide Pass Rate: 90%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 42
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 33
- Institutional Pass Rate: 79%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2255
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1899
- Statewide Pass Rate: 84%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-2020
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 36
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 32
- Institutional Pass Rate: 89%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2093
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1835
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
2024 Alternative Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2023-2024 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2023-24
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 34
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 31
- Institutional Pass Rate: 91%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: TBD
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: TBD
- Statewide Pass Rate: TBD
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1:13
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 13
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 660
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 737
- Statewide Pass Rate: 93%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 6
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: n/a
- Institutional Pass Rate: n/a
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 737
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 678
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 765
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 677
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 611
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 563
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
- 2023 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
- 2023 Candidate Licensure Test
- 2023 Candidate Selection Criteria
- 2023 Teacher Effectiveness
- 2023 Employer Satisfaction
- 2023 Candidate Satisfaction
- 2023 Traditional Title II Reports
- 2023 Alternative Title II Reports
2023 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 11,674 | 261 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3,304 | 59 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 28.3 | 22.7 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 7579 | 200 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 64.9 | 76.6 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 311 | 2 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 2.7 | 0.1 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 510 | 0 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 4.4% | 0 |
| Percentage Total*** | 100 | 100 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
**Education Candidates - includes all students who in a given academic year were formally admitted to, enrolled in, or completed the institution’s education program.
Percentage Total = Percentage Completion/Graduation + Percentage Retained in Education + Percentage Program Attrition + Percentage Institutional Attrition = 100%
Percentage of Completion/Graduation = Completion/Graduation Number DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage Retained in Education = Number Retained in Education DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Program Attrition] = Number of candidates who left education but remained at the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Institutional Attrition]= Number of candidates who left the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
2023 Candidate Licensure Test
*Please check back later for details
Average Number of Attempts before Passing Indiana CORE Assessments (Praxis): Content and Pedagogical Knowledge*
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5621/0621 | Early Childhood Education | 82 | 1.1 | n/a |
| 5622/0622 | Elementary Education | 983 | 1 | 1.1 |
| 5624/0624 | Secondary Education | 617 | 1 | 1.1 |
| 5625/0625 | P-12 Education | 306 | 1.1 | <10 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5101/0101 | Business | 11 | 1 | n/a |
| 5362/0362 | English Learners | 20 | 2 | n/a |
| 5038/0038 | English Language Arts | 120 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5543/0543 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention | 304 | 1 | n/a |
| 5115/0115 | Fine Arts—Instrumental Music | 57 | 1 | n/a |
| 5116/0116 | Fine Arts—Vocal Music | 43 | 1 | n/a |
| 5641/0641 | Fine Arts—Theatre Arts | 17 | 1 | <10 |
| 5134/0134 | Fine Arts—Visual Arts | 53 | 1.5 | <10 |
| 5165/0165 | Mathematics | 87 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5206/0206 | Reading | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 4245/0245 | Science—Chemistry | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5571/0571 | Science—Earth/Space Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5485/0485 | Science—Physical Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5265/0265 | Science—Physics | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5921/0921 | Social Studies—Geographical Perspectives | 8 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 5931/0931 | Social Studies—Government /Political Science | 47 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5941/0941 | Social Studies—World and US History Content | 153 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 5174/0174 | World Languages—French | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| 5183/0183 | World Languages—German | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 5195/0195 | World Languages—Spanish | 14 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 5008/0008 | Elementary Education: Math and Science Subtest | 942 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 5007/0007 | Elementary Education: Reading LA & Social Studies Subtest | 1026 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| 5551/0551 | Health Education | 21 | 1.2 | n/a |
*Program Completers as identified in Title II Report(s) during the 2019-2020 academic year (*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.)
Calculations are made for Average Scores, Average Before Passing, and Percent Pass on First Attempt as follows:
Average Scores = Total scores for all attempts by Program Completers DIVIDED BY Total Number of Attempts
Average Before Passing = Number of all passing attempts DIVIDED BY Number of attempts
Average Percentage Who Pass on First Attempt = Number of Completers (Number Test takers) that passed the test on the initial attempt DIVIDED BY Number of Completers (Number Test takers)
*PRAXIS I or CASA not required if candidate meets one of the following alternatives: a.) ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science; b.) SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math; c.) GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative prior to 8/1/11; d.) GRE with a score of at least 301 based on Verbal and Quantitative on or after 8/1/11; e.) Praxis I composite score of at least 527 based on Reading, Writing, and Math if taken prior to 9/1/13; or f.) Master's or higher degree earned from a regionally accredited institution.
2023 Candidate Selection Data
EPP Candidate Selection Criteria
|
Minimum Cumulative GPA Required for Entry in EPP |
State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 2.70 | 2.70 |
| Alternative | 2.74 | 3.0 |
|
Minimum Cumulative GPA Required for Entry in EPP |
State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 3.44 | 3.49 |
| Alternative | 3.38 | 3.22 |
*Includes both admitted candidates and program completers in any program leading to initial instructional licensure (traditional undergraduate, Transition to Teaching, etc.)
2023 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2021-2022
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: 20
- Highly Effective: 2
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 22
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 22
- Highly Effective: 12
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 34
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 42
- Highly Effective: 14
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 56
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 84
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 28
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 112
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 112
- Final Percent: 100%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2023 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 0 | 19 | 12 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 0 | 19 | 12 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 15 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 0 | 23 | 8 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 23 | 8 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 22 | 9 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 10 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 0 | 23 | 8 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 0 | 19 | 11 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 0 | 18 | 12 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 9 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 16 | 12 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 0 | 19 | 12 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 1 | 16 | 14 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 13 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 15 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 1 | 18 | 12 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 19 | 12 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 18 | 13 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 0 | 17 | 14 |
2023 Candidate Satisfaction
Teacher Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
2023 Teacher Survey Results for the University of Indianapolis was less than 10. Therefore, the 2022 Teacher Survey Results are shown below.
The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Teachers responded to each of the following:
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. understanding how learners/students develop and grow. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 2. meeting the content preparation and knowledge level expected of a beginning teacher. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 3. adhering to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 4 | 9 |
| 4. adhering to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 5. recognizing the importance of continued professional development. | 1 | 0 | 5 | 8 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. providing appropriate and challenging learning experiences. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 7. providing an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 8. providing a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 9. working collaboratively with school leaders and/or colleagues to promote safe and positive learning environments. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 10. differentiating instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 |
| 11. working effectively with students with all exceptionalities | 0 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| 12. developing quality assessments to test for student understanding of lessons. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 13. analyzing student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 14. using appropriate strategies to effectively manage learning environments. | 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| 15. integrating technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 10 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me to recognize the importance of: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16. openly accepting suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 17. exhibiting ethical practice. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 18. working effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 19. working effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 1 | 9 | 4 |
| 20. working effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 21. working effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 8 | 6 |
| Description | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22. Indicate your overall assessment of how well you were prepared to teach by your educator preparation program. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
2023 Traditional Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2022-2023 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 35
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 28
- Institutional Pass Rate: 80%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 1828
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1611
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 41
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 34
- Institutional Pass Rate: 83%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2155
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1940
- Statewide Pass Rate: 90%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 42
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 33
- Institutional Pass Rate: 79%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2255
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1899
- Statewide Pass Rate: 84%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-2020
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 36
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 32
- Institutional Pass Rate: 89%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2093
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1835
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
2023 Alternative Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2022-2023 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2022-23
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1:13
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 13
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 660
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 737
- Statewide Pass Rate: 93%
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 6
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: n/a
- Institutional Pass Rate: n/a
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 737
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 678
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 765
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 677
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 611
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 563
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
- 2022 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
- 2022 Candidate Licensure Test
- 2022 Candidate Selection Criteria
- 2022 Teacher Effectiveness
- 2022 Employer Satisfaction
- 2022 Candidate Satisfaction
- 2022 Traditional Title II Reports
- 2022 Alternative Title II Reports
2022 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 11,914 | 179 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3,462 | 61 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 29.1 | 34.2 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 7726 | 117 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 67.0 | 65.3 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 199 | 0 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 1.7 | 0 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 570 | 1 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 4.8 | .5 |
| Percentage Total*** | 100 | 100 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
**Education Candidates - includes all students who in a given academic year were formally admitted to, enrolled in, or completed the institution’s education program.
Percentage Total = Percentage Completion/Graduation + Percentage Retained in Education + Percentage Program Attrition + Percentage Institutional Attrition = 100%
Percentage of Completion/Graduation = Completion/Graduation Number DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage Retained in Education = Number Retained in Education DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Program Attrition] = Number of candidates who left education but remained at the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Institutional Attrition]= Number of candidates who left the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
2022 Candidate Licensure Test
*Please check back later for details
Average Number of Attempts before Passing Indiana CORE Assessments (Praxis): Content and Pedagogical Knowledge*
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | Early Childhood Education | |||
| 005 | Elementary Education | |||
| 006 | Secondary Education | |||
| 007 | P-12 Education |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | Business | |||
| 019 | English Learners | |||
| 021 | English Language Arts | |||
| 025 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention | |||
| 026 | Fine Arts—General Music | |||
| 027 | Fine Arts—Instrumental Music | |||
| 028 | Fine Arts—Vocal Music | |||
| 029 | Fine Arts—Theatre Arts | |||
| 030 | Fine Arts—Visual Arts | |||
| 035 | Mathematics | |||
| 038 | Reading | |||
| 043 | Science—Chemistry | |||
| 044 | Science—Earth/Space Science | |||
| 045 | Science—Life Science | |||
| 046 | Science—Physical Science | |||
| 047 | Science—Physics | |||
| 049 | Social Studies—Geographical Perspectives | |||
| 050 | Social Studies—Government and Citizenship | |||
| 051 | Social Studies—Historical Perspectives | |||
| 055 | World Languages—French | |||
| 056 | World Languages—German | |||
| 059 | World Languages—Spanish | |||
| 060 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 1: Reading and English Language Arts | |||
| 061 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 2: Mathematics | |||
| 062 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 3: Science, Health, and Physical Education | |||
| 063 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 4: Social Studies and Fine Arts | |||
| 064 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention: Reading Instruction | |||
| 066 | Health | |||
| 067 | Physical Education |
*Program Completers as identified in Title II Report(s) during the 2019-2020 academic year (*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.)
Calculations are made for Average Scores, Average Before Passing, and Percent Pass on First Attempt as follows:
Average Scores = Total scores for all attempts by Program Completers DIVIDED BY Total Number of Attempts
Average Before Passing = Number of all passing attempts DIVIDED BY Number of attempts
Average Percentage Who Pass on First Attempt = Number of Completers (Number Test takers) that passed the test on the initial attempt DIVIDED BY Number of Completers (Number Test takers)
*PRAXIS I or CASA not required if candidate meets one of the following alternatives: a.) ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science; b.) SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math; c.) GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative prior to 8/1/11; d.) GRE with a score of at least 301 based on Verbal and Quantitative on or after 8/1/11; e.) Praxis I composite score of at least 527 based on Reading, Writing, and Math if taken prior to 9/1/13; or f.) Master's or higher degree earned from a regionally accredited institution.
2022 Candidate Selection Data
EPP Candidate Selection Criteria
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 2.71 | 2.70 |
| Alternative | 2.77 | 3.0 |
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 3.37 | 3.49 |
| Alternative | 3.36 | 3.54 |
*Includes both admitted candidates and program completers in any program leading to initial instructional licensure (traditional undergraduate, Transition to Teaching, etc.)
2022 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2020-2021
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: 18
- Highly Effective: 2
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 20
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 22
- Highly Effective: 11
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 33
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 19
- Highly Effective: 7
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 26
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 59
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 20
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 79
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 79
- Final Percent: 100%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2022 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 0 | 18 | 9 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 10 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 14 | 12 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 15 | 12 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 10 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 11 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 17 | 18 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 0 | 18 | 9 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 6 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 0 | 21 | 6 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 18 | 7 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 0 | 19 | 8 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 0 | 18 | 9 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 0 | 14 | 13 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 11 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 10 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 14 | 13 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 0 | 16 | 11 |
2022 Candidate Satisfaction
Teacher Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Teachers responded to each of the following:
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. understanding how learners/students develop and grow. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 2. meeting the content preparation and knowledge level expected of a beginning teacher. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 3. adhering to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 4 | 9 |
| 4. adhering to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 5. recognizing the importance of continued professional development. | 1 | 0 | 5 | 8 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. providing appropriate and challenging learning experiences. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 7. providing an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 8. providing a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 9. working collaboratively with school leaders and/or colleagues to promote safe and positive learning environments. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 10. differentiating instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 |
| 11. working effectively with students with all exceptionalities | 0 | 2 | 3 | 9 |
| 12. developing quality assessments to test for student understanding of lessons. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 13. analyzing student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 14. using appropriate strategies to effectively manage learning environments. | 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| 15. integrating technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 10 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me to recognize the importance of: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16. openly accepting suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 17. exhibiting ethical practice. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 18. working effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| 19. working effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 1 | 9 | 4 |
| 20. working effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| 21. working effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 8 | 6 |
| Description | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22. Indicate your overall assessment of how well you were prepared to teach by your educator preparation program. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
2022 Traditional Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Traditional Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2021-2022 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 39
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 31
- Institutional Pass Rate: 79%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2075
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1804
- Statewide Pass Rate: 87%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 42
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 33
- Institutional Pass Rate: 79%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2238
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1868
- Statewide Pass Rate: 83%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 36
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 32
- Institutional Pass Rate: 89%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 2093
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 1835
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
2022 Alternative Title II Reports
Summary Institution-Level Pass Rate Data: Alternative Teacher Preparation Program Within IHE
- HEOA - Title II 2021-2022 Academic Year
- Institutional Name: University of Indianapolis
- Institutional Code: 1321
- State: Indiana
- Group: All program completers, 2021-22
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 6
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: n/a
- Institutional Pass Rate: n/a
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 691
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 634
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
- Group: All program completers, 2020-21
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 758
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 666
- Statewide Pass Rate: 88%
- Group: All program completers, 2019-20
- Institutional Number Taking Assessment1: 10
- Institutional Number Passing Assessment2: 10
- Institutional Pass Rate: 100%
- Statewide Number Taking Assessment1: 611
- Statewide Number Passing Assessment2: 563
- Statewide Pass Rate: 92%
Note: In cases where there are less than ten students taking the assessment or license/certificate, the number passing and pass rate are not reported.
1 Number of completers taking one or more assessments within their area of specialization.
2 Summary level “Number Taking Assessment” may differ from assessment level “Number Taking Assessment” because each student is counted once at the summary level but may be counted in multiple assessments at the assessment level.
- 2021 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
- 2021 Candidate Licensure Test
- 2021 Candidate Selection Criteria
- 2021 Teacher Effectiveness
- 2021 Employer Satisfaction
- 2021 Candidate Satisfaction
- 2021 Traditional Title II Reports
- 2021 Alternative Title II Reports
2021 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 10,763 | 172 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3,206 | 49 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 29.8 | 28 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 7061 | 121 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 65.6 | 70 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 143 | 1 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 356 | 1 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 3.3 | 1.0 |
| Percentage Total*** | 100 | 100 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
**Education Candidates - includes all students who in a given academic year were formally admitted to, enrolled in, or completed the institution’s education program.
*** Percentage Total = Percentage Completion/Graduation + Percentage Retained in Education + Percentage Program Attrition + Percentage Institutional Attrition = 100%
Percentage of Completion/Graduation = Completion/Graduation Number DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage Retained in Education = Number Retained in Education DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Program Attrition] = Number of candidates who left education but remained at the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates.
Percentage of Attrition [Institutional Attrition]= Number of candidates who left the institution DIVIDED BY total number of candidates
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
2021 Candidate Licensure Test
Average Number of Attempts before Passing Indiana CORE Assessments (Pearson): Content and Pedagogical Knowledge*
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | CASA Reading | 1843 | 242 | 231 |
| 002 | CASA Math | 2258 | 233 | 228 |
| 003 | CASA Writing | 2299 | 230 | 228 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | Early Childhood Education | 105 | 230 | n/a |
| 005 | Elementary Education | 1343 | 243 | 250 |
| 006 | Secondary Education | 700 | 253 | 256 |
| 007 | P-12 Education | 330 | 249 | <10 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | Business | 47 | 218 |
<10 |
| 009 | Career and Technical Education-Agriculture | 29 | 246 |
n/a |
| 010 | Career and Technical Education - Business and Information Technology | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 011 | Career and Technical Education - Family and consumer Sciences | 27 | 215 | n/a |
| 012 | Career and Technical Education - Marketing | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 013 | Computer Education | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 014 | Early Childhood Education Subtest 1: Reading and English Language Arts | 64 | 235 | n/a |
| 015 | Early childhood Education Subtest 2: Mathmatics | 66 | 241 | n/a |
| 016 | Early Childhood Education Subtest 3: Science, Health and Physical Education | 59 | 239 | n/a |
| 017 | Early Childhood Education Subtest 4: Social Studies and Fine Arts | 72 | 227 | n/a |
| 018 | Engineering and Technology Education | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 019 | English Learners | 26 | 238 | n/a |
| 020 | Middle School English language Arts | <10 | <10 | |
| 021 | English Language Arts | 228 | 226 | <10 |
| 022 | Exceptional Needs - Blind or Low Vision | |||
| 023 | Exceptional Needs - Deaf or Hard of Hearing | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 024 | Exceptional Needs - Intense Intervention | 26 | 231 | n/a |
| 025 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention | 447 | 242 | <10 |
| 026 | Fine Arts—General Music | 127 | 231 | <10 |
| 027 | Fine Arts—Instrumental Music | 119 | 216 | <10 |
| 028 | Fine Arts—Vocal Music | 51 | 227 | n/a |
| 029 | Fine Arts—Theatre Arts | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 030 | Fine Arts—Visual Arts | 69 | 234 | <10 |
| 033 | Journalism | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 034 | Middle School Mathematics | 46 | 225 | n/a |
| 035 | Mathematics | 164 | 221 | <10 |
| 036 | Middle School Science | 22 | 204 | n/a |
| 037 | Middle School Social Studies | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 038 | Reading | 17 | 208 | <10 |
| 043 | Science—Chemistry | 33 | 237 | <10 |
| 044 | Science—Earth/Space Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 045 | Science—Life Science | 81 | 227 | n/a |
| 046 | Science—Physical Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 047 | Science—Physics | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 048 | Social Studies - Economics | 35 | 218 | n/a |
| 049 | Social Studies—Geographical Perspectives | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 050 | Social Studies—Government and Citizenship | 68 | 237 | <10 |
| 051 | Social Studies—Historical Perspectives | 276 | 212 | <10 |
| 052 | Social Studies - Psychology | 14 | 225 | n/a |
| 053 | Soical Studeis - Sociology | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 054 | World Languages - Chinese (Mandarin) | |||
| 055 | World Languages—French | <10 | <20 | n/a |
| 056 | World Languages—German | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 057 | World Languages - Japanese | |||
| 058 | World Languages - Latin | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 059 | World Languages—Spanish | 37 | 244 | n/a |
| 060 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 1: Reading and English Language Arts | 1865 | 223 | 227 |
| 061 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 2: Mathematics | 1638 | 235 | 242 |
| 062 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 3: Science, Health, and Physical Education | 1561 | 235 | 232 |
| 063 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 4: Social Studies and Fine Arts | 1920 | 219 | 219 |
| 064 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention: Reading Instruction | 186 | 211 | n/a |
| 066 | Health | 17 | 242 | n/a |
| 067 | Physical Education | 58 | 237 | n/a |
*Program Completers as identified in Title II Report(s) during the 2019-2020 academic year (*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.)
Calculations are made for Average Scores, Average Before Passing, and Percent Pass on First Attempt as follows:
Average Scores = Total scores for all attempts by Program Completers DIVIDED BY Total Number of Attempts
Average Before Passing = Number of all passing attempts DIVIDED BY Number of attempts
Average Percentage Who Pass on First Attempt = Number of Completers (Number Test takers) that passed the test on the initial attempt DIVIDED BY Number of Completers (Number Test takers)
*PRAXIS I or CASA not required if candidate meets one of the following alternatives: a.) ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science; b.) SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math; c.) GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative prior to 8/1/11; d.) GRE with a score of at least 301 based on Verbal and Quantitative on or after 8/1/11; e.) Praxis I composite score of at least 527 based on Reading, Writing, and Math if taken prior to 9/1/13; or f.) Master's or higher degree earned from a regionally accredited institution.
2021 Candidate Selection Data
EPP Candidate Selection Criteria
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 2.70 | 2.70 |
| Alternative | 2.71 | 3.0 |
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 3.46 | 3.35 |
| Alternative | 3.39 | 3.9 |
*Includes both admitted candidates and program completers in any program leading to initial instructional licensure (traditional undergraduate, Transition to Teaching, etc.)
2021 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2019-2020
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: 19
- Highly Effective: 3
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 22
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 23
- Highly Effective: 8
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 31
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 20
- Highly Effective: 11
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 31
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 62
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 22
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 84
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 84
- Final Percent: 100%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2021 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 0 | 11 | 13 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 0 | 9 | 15 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 18 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 17 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 11 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 3 | 11 | 10 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 1 | 13 | 10 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 2 | 9 | 13 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 1 | 14 | 9 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 2 | 13 | 9 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 3 | 10 | 11 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 0 | 9 | 15 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 1 | 6 | 17 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 17 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 17 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 10 | 14 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 8 | 16 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 1 | 8 | 15 |
2021 Candidate Satisfaction
Teacher Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Teachers responded to each of the following:
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. understanding how learners/students develop and grow. | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 |
| 2. meeting the content preparation and knowledge level expected of a beginning teacher. | 0 | 1 | 9 | 30 |
| 3. adhering to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 33 |
| 4. adhering to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 |
| 5. recognizing the importance of continued professional development. | 0 | 0 | 9 | 31 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. providing appropriate and challenging learning experiences. | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 |
| 7. providing an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 1 | 10 | 29 |
| 8. providing a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 28 |
| 9. working collaboratively with school leaders and/or colleagues to promote safe and positive learning environments. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 28 |
| 10. differentiating instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 28 |
| 11. working effectively with students with all exceptionalities | 0 | 1 | 16 | 23 |
| 12. developing quality assessments to test for student understanding of lessons. | 0 | 1 | 12 | 270 |
| 13. analyzing student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 1 | 16 | 23 |
| 14. using appropriate strategies to effectively manage learning environments. | 0 | 2 | 17 | 21 |
| 15. integrating technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning. | 0 | 0 | 16 | 24 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me to recognize the importance of: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16. openly accepting suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 1 | 7 | 32 |
| 17. exhibiting ethical practice. | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 |
| 18. working effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 11 | 290 |
| 19. working effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 1 | 20 | 19 |
| 20. working effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 17 | 23 |
| 21. working effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 12 | 28 |
| Description | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22. Indicate your overall assessment of how well you were prepared to teach by your educator preparation program. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 34 |
- 2020 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
- 2020 Candidate Licensure Test
- 2020 Candidate Selection Criteria
- 2020 Teacher Effectiveness
- 2020 Employer Satisfaction
- 2020 Candidate Satisfaction
- 2020 Traditional Title II Reports
- 2020 Alternative Title II Reports
2020 Completion & Retention Rates for Initial Licensure
| Description | State Total | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Education Candidates** | 10530 | 183 |
| Total Number Completion/Graduation | 3218 | 57 |
| Percentage Completion/Graduation | 30.6 | 31 |
| Total Number Retained in Education | 6670 | 120 |
| Percentage Retained in Education | 63.3 | 66 |
| Total Number Program Attrition | 268 | 4 |
| Percentage Program Attrition | 2.5 | 2 |
| Total Number Institutional Attrition | 375 | 2 |
| Percentage Institutional Attrition | 3.6 | 1 |
| Percentage Total*** | 100 | 100 |
*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.
*Attrition/Retention/Completion numbers were calculated using the IPEDS methodology.
2020 Candidate Licensure Test
Average Number of Attempts before Passing Indiana CORE Assessments (Pearson): Content and Pedagogical Knowledge*
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | CASA Reading | 1833 | 1.2 | 1 |
| 002 | CASA Math | 2142 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| 003 | CASA Writing | 2171 | 1.4 | 1.2 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | Early Childhood Education | 114 | 1.2 | n/a |
| 005 | Elementary Education | 1439 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 006 | Secondary Education | 799 | 1 | 1 |
| 007 | P-12 Education | 401 | 1.1 | <10 |
| Test Number | Test Name (Code) | State Total Number of Attempts | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | Business | 18 | 1.5 | <10 |
| 019 | English Learners | 33 | 1 | n/a |
| 021 | English Language Arts | 242 | 1.4 | <10 |
| 025 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention | 502 | 1.1 | <10 |
| 026 | Fine Arts—General Music | 105 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 027 | Fine Arts—Instrumental Music | 102 | 1.7 | n/a |
| 028 | Fine Arts—Vocal Music | 45 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 029 | Fine Arts—Theatre Arts | <10 | <10 | <10 |
| 030 | Fine Arts—Visual Arts | 80 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 035 | Mathematics | 139 | 1.6 | <10 |
| 038 | Reading | 12 | 1.3 | <10 |
| 043 | Science—Chemistry | 35 | 1.2 | <10 |
| 044 | Science—Earth/Space Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 045 | Science—Life Science | 92 | 1.5 | <10 |
| 046 | Science—Physical Science | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 047 | Science—Physics | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 049 | Social Studies—Geographical Perspectives | 10 | 1.7 | <10 |
| 050 | Social Studies—Government and Citizenship | 64 | 1.2 | <10 |
| 051 | Social Studies—Historical Perspectives | 189 | 1.6 | <10 |
| 055 | World Languages—French | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 056 | World Languages—German | <10 | <10 | n/a |
| 059 | World Languages—Spanish | 54 | 1.1 | n/a |
| 060 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 1: Reading and English Language Arts | 2004 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| 061 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 2: Mathematics | 1863 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| 062 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 3: Science, Health, and Physical Education | 1721 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 063 | Elementary Education Gen. Subtest 4: Social Studies and Fine Arts | 1959 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| 064 | Exceptional Needs—Mild Intervention: Reading Instruction | 143 | 1.6 | <10 |
| 066 | Health | 30 | 1.2 | <10 |
| 067 | Physical Education | 69 | 1.2 | <10 |
*Program Completers as identified in Title II Report(s) during the 2018-2019 academic year (*Academic year is defined as September 1 - August 31.)
Calculations are made for Average Scores, Average Before Passing, and Percent Pass on First Attempt as follows: Average Scores = Total scores for all attempts by Program Completers DIVIDED BY Total Number of Attempts
Average Before Passing = Number of all passing attempts DIVIDED BY Number of attempts Average Percentage Who Pass on First Attempt = Number of Completers (Number Test takers) that passed the test on the initial attempt DIVIDED BY Number of Completers (Number Test takers)
*PRAXIS I or CASA not required if candidate meets one of the following alternatives: a.) ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science; b.) SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math; c.) GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative prior to 8/1/11; d.) GRE with a score of at least 301 based on Verbal and Quantitative on or after 8/1/11; e.) Praxis I composite score of at least 527 based on Reading, Writing, and Math if taken prior to 9/1/13; or f.)
2020 Candidate Selection Data
EPP Candidate Selection Criteria
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 2.64 | 2.75 |
| Alternative | 2.77 | 2.75 |
| Type | State Average | University of Indianapolis |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | 3.42 | 3.42 |
| Alternative | 3.41 | 3.44 |
2020 Teacher Effectiveness
Percent of Teachers Achieving Effective or Highly Effective Rating 2018-2019
Institution: University of Indianapolis
- Teachers with One (1) Year Experience
- Effective: 24
- Highly Effective: 9
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 34
- Teachers with Two (2) Years of Experience
- Effective: 18
- Highly Effective: 12
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 31
- Teachers with Three (3) Years of Experience
- Effective: 19
- Highly Effective: 5
- Total of Teachers Evaluated: 24
- Grand Totals
- Grand Total Rated Effective: 61
- Grand Total Rated Highly Effective: 26
- Grand Total Effective and Highly Effective: 87
- Grand Total Teachers Evaluated: 89
- Final Percent: 98%
*"Year" defined as September 1 - August 31.
Visit Educator Evaluations for more information.
2020 Employer Satisfaction
Principal Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
Principals are responding to statements divided into three domains (knowledge, disposition, and performance) and reflect elements of both national professional standards (NCATE/CAEP) and the Model Core Teaching Standards, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). EPPs are expected to meet these standards in order to prepare educators for licensure (511 IAC 13-1-1).
For each of the following, please provide your assessment of how well the EPP prepared this teacher in the following categories. The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. ...understand how students learn and develop at the grade level they are teaching. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 14 |
| 2. ...meet expectations of a beginning teacher for content preparation and knowledge. | 0 | 1 | 5 | 16 |
| 3. ...adhere to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 19 |
| 4. ...adhere to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 18 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. ...provide an appropriate and challenging learning experience. | 0 | 0 | 9 | 13 |
| 6. ...provide an inclusive learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 17 |
| 7. ...provide a rigorous learning environment. | 0 | 0 | 10 | 12 |
| 8. ...use a variety of assessment methods to guide, adjust, and improve instruction. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 10 |
| 9. ...develop content specific assessments to test for student understanding of the lesson objectives. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 10 |
| 10. ..differentiate instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 0 | 1 | 9 | 12 |
| 11. ..work effectively with students with all exceptionalities. | 0 | 1 | 7 | 14 |
| 12. ..analyze student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 0 | 0 | 13 | 9 |
| 13. ..use effective strategies to manage the learning environment. | 0 | 2 | 13 | 7 |
| 14. ..integrate technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning | 0 | 0 | 7 | 14 |
| The EPP did an outstanding job of preparing this teacher to... | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Agree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15. …openly accept suggestions/constructive feedback. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 19 |
| 16. …exhibit ethical practice expected of educators. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20 |
| 17. …work effectively with other professionals. | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 |
| 18. …work effectively with parents/guardians. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 |
| 19. …work effectively with school leaders. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 |
| 20. …work effectively within the school culture. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 19 |
| Description | Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training this teacher received from this EPP? | 0 | 0 | 8 | 15 |
2020 Candidate Satisfaction
Teacher Survey Results for University of Indianapolis
The range is from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Teachers responded to each of the following:
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. understanding how learners/students develop and grow. | 1 | 0 | 8 | 18 |
| 2. meeting the content preparation and knowledge level expected of a beginning teacher. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
| 3. adhering to the ethical requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 8 | 18 |
| 4. adhering to the legal requirements of the teaching profession. | 1 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| 5. recognizing the importance of continued professional development. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me for: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. providing appropriate and challenging learning experiences. | 1 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| 7. providing an inclusive learning environment. | 1 | 0 | 10 | 16 |
| 8. providing a rigorous learning environment. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
| 9. working collaboratively with school leaders and/or colleagues to promote safe and positive learning environments. | 1 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
| 10. differentiating instruction to meet all students’ learning needs. | 1 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| 11. working effectively with students with all exceptionalities | 1 | 0 | 10 | 16 |
| 12. developing quality assessments to test for student understanding of lessons. | 1 | 0 | 7 | 19 |
| 13. analyzing student assessment data to improve classroom instruction. | 1 | 0 | 7 | 19 |
| 14. using appropriate strategies to effectively manage learning environments. | 1 | 1 | 10 | 15 |
| 15. integrating technological tools as appropriate to advance student learning. | 1 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| My educator preparation program prepared me to recognize the importance of: | Strongly Disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Agree (3) | Strongly Disagree (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16. openly accepting suggestions/constructive feedback. | 1 | 0 | 5 | 21 |
| 17. exhibiting ethical practice. | 1 | 0 | 8 | 18 |
| 18. working effectively with other professionals. | 1 | 0 | 7 | 20 |
| 19. working effectively with parents/guardians. | 1 | 2 | 12 | 12 |
| 20. working effectively with school leaders. | 1 | 0 | 12 | 14 |
| 21. working effectively within the school culture. | 1 | 0 | 11 | 15 |
| Description | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22. Indicate your overall assessment of how well you were prepared to teach by your educator preparation program. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 20 |
Professional Licensure Disclosure
Education Programs at the University of Indianapolis that prepare students for Teacher Licensure are designed to meet the licensing standards set by the Indiana Department of Education. Students seeking licensure in another state are advised to contact the appropriate licensing board in that state to determine specific requirements for licensure. The University of Indianapolis cannot confirm whether a specific program meets requirements for licensure outside of the State of Indiana. For a list of the state departments of education that oversee professional teaching licensure, see the U.S. Department of Education website - State Contacts.
Licensure in Mild Interventions
Candidates seeking licensure in Mild Intervention can complete the MI Concentration while completing a Major in either Elementary or Secondary Education. The Mild Interventions license will be an additional license and will only be awarded in addition to the initial license. A student will be recommended for licensure only at the developmental level of their initial or existing license. The area of licensure will be mild interventions.
Representations on licensing apply to a license in the state of Indiana only. Potential students seeking a license in other states should check with that state's educational licensing authorities for requirements.
Traditional Program Summary Pass Rates and Ability to be Hired
Includes all undergraduate programs in Teacher Education
| Group | Number taking tests | Number passing tests | Pass rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All program completers, 2023-2024 | 16 | 11 | 69 |
| All program completers, 2022-2023 | 35 | 28 | 80 |
| All program completers, 2021-2022 | 41 | 34 | 83 |
| All program completers, 2020-2021 | 42 | 33 | 79 |
| All program completers, 2019-2020 | 36 | 36 | 100 |
| All program completers, 2018-2019 | 36 | 36 | 100 |
| All program completers, 2017-2018 | 37 | 32 | 86 |
| All program completers, 2016-2017 | 28 | 26 | 93 |
Alternative program summary pass rates and ability to be hired
Includes Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellowship programs
| Group | Number taking tests | Number passing tests | Pass rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All program completers, 2023-2024 | 34 | 31 | 91 |
| All program completers, 2022-2023 | 13 | 13 | 100 |
| All program completers, 2021-2022 | 6 | n/a | n/a |
| All program completers, 2020-2021 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
| All program completers, 2019-2020 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
| All program completers, 2018-2019 | 14 | 13 | 93 |
| All program completers, 2017-2018 | 16 | 15 | 94 |
| All program completers, 2016-2017 | 18 | 18 | 100 |