Northern Arizona University

A diverse teacher workforce benefits all students, particularly students of color. While there has been real progress over the last twenty years in diversifying the teacher workforce,¹ these gains have not kept pace with a rapidly diversifying student population. To accelerate progress, strategic recruitment efforts by teacher preparation programs are essential.

• Teacher prep enrollment: 36 percent candidates of color²
• Arizona teacher workforce: 24 percent teachers of color³
• Local demographics: 46 percent persons of color⁴

Programs earning a C do not sufficiently contribute to the diversification of the teacher workforce. Programs earn this grade under one of three conditions: 1. The percentage of enrolled candidates of color is up to 5 percentage points lower than the diversity of the state teacher workforce and local population; 2. The percentage of enrolled candidates of color meets or exceeds the diversity of the state teacher workforce, but is more than 5 percentage points lower than the proportion of persons of color in the local population; or, 3. The percentage of enrolled candidates of color meets or exceeds the diversity of the local population, but is more than 5 percentage points lower than the proportion of teachers of color in the state workforce.

Northern Arizona University is found to be 12.1 percentage points more diverse than the Arizona teacher workforce and 9.8 percentage points less diverse than the local population.

Detailed course-level findings

All elementary teacher candidates should learn scientifically based reading instruction, the research-based content and methods to effectively teach all children to read. This content should be clearly evident in a teacher preparation program’s course materials, including class session topics, assignments, practice opportunities, and background materials. The five core components of scientifically based reading instruction evaluated under this standard are: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension.

A review of ECI 402 and ECI 403 finds the program earns a B for providing adequate coverage for four components.

To meet coverage requirements for a component, a program must earn at least 8 out of 12 points based on addressing the component through four instructional approaches: instructional hours, background materials (e.g., textbooks, readings, and other resources), objective measures of knowledge (e.g., tests or written assignments), and practice/application. A program can earn up to three points for each instructional approach.

Analysis found there was adequate coverage of the following component(s):

• Phonics: 9 of 12 points
• Fluency: 8.81 of 12 points
• Vocabulary: 9 of 12 points
• Comprehension: 8 of 12 points

Analysis found there was not adequate coverage of the following component(s):

• Phonemic Awareness: 6.96 of 12 points

Evidence of Content Contrary to Research-Based Practices

Analysis found no evidence of course content focused on practices that run contrary to research.


Evidence of Exemplary Practices

Courses analyzed were inclusive of content that provides an understanding of how and why scientifically based reading instruction is effective. That content included:

• Nature of scientific research/characteristics of strong research
• How the brain works when reading

For additional information on how programs are scored, please review the technical report. The link below provides a more detailed program summary, including course-level analysis based on the material provided.

Download the detailed course-level findings




Support for Range of Learners
(Ungraded: Findings did not contribute your grade)

All elementary teacher candidates should be prepared to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students. To elevate the importance of instruction on how to support a range of learners, including struggling readers, English language learners, and students who speak language varieties other than mainstream English (e.g. speakers of African American English or Appalachian English), this analysis looks for evidence in the teacher preparation program’s course materials including class session topics, assignments, practice opportunities, and background materials.

To provide feedback on how institutions address instruction, a program can earn up to a total of eight points for each population over four instructional approaches: instructional hours, background materials (e.g. textbooks, readings, and other resources), objective measures of knowledge (e.g. tests and written assignments), and practice/application. A program can earn up to two points for each instructional approach.

Analysis found the following coverage for supporting a range of learners:

• Struggling Readers: 2.75 of 8 points, placing this program at the 44th percentile among evaluated programs.
• English Language Learners: 4 of 8 points, placing this program at the 66th percentile among evaluated programs.
• Students who speak language varieties other than mainstream English: 0 of 8 points, placing this program at the 1st percentile among evaluated programs. Note that programs' attention to this group of students is nascent, and few programs had evidence of any attention in this area.

Download the detailed course-level findings

In order for elementary schools to deliver equitable and effective instruction in mathematics to all students, they need their teachers to have acquired the mathematics content and pedagogical knowledge specified in commonly accepted mathematics education standards. To evaluate that coverage, the Elementary Mathematics standard examines the instructional time allocated to each of the five essential topics in coursework required by teacher preparation programs.

To assess performance under this standard, the distribution of instructional time is estimated using syllabi and course descriptions. Only courses that provide content and pedagogical knowledge related to elementary mathematics are considered.

A review of ECI 405, MAT 150, and MAT 155 found the following coverage:

Numbers & Operations: 44 instructional hours*
Recommended target: 45 hours

Algebraic Thinking: 1 instructional hours*
Recommended target: 20 hours

Geometry & Measurement: 33 instructional hours
Recommended target: 25 hours

Data Analysis & Probability: 12 instructional hours
Recommended target: 15 hours

Mathematics Pedagogy: 45 instructional hours
Recommended target: 45 hours

*Please note that for grading purposes, the hours for Numbers & Operations and Algebraic Thinking are summed and measured against a combined target of 65 hours. Under this measure, 45 instructional hours were found.

Programs earning a B provide most of the content and pedagogical knowledge elementary teachers need for effective mathematics instruction. Programs earn this grade by allocating at least 120 hours (of the 150 recommended target hours) to the five essential topic areas combined, equivalent to 80% of the total target recommendation.

Analysis of the required coursework for elementary teacher candidates at Northern Arizona University found the program to address 84.7% of the total target recommendation.

To be successful, elementary teachers need content knowledge in science and social studies, both to build their students' understanding of the world and their critical thinking skills, and also to support students in becoming strong readers. Becoming a strong reader requires cumulative exposure to content knowledge, cutting across multiple domains and disciplines. The courses aspiring teachers take gives them strong background knowledge in these subjects, and in turn, they give this knowledge to students.

This program was not included in the 2023 Building Content Knowledge analysis.

Analysis under the Clinical Practice standard was last completed in 2020. The methodology and summary results for that review can be found here. Individual program grades also remain available.

The next iteration of the standard is currently being designed following the Clinical Practice Framework that was developed using the most up-to-date research and the input of experts.

Analysis under the Classroom Management standard was last completed in 2020. The methodology and summary results for that review can be found here. Individual program grades also remain available.

The next iteration of the standard will be designed following the release of the Classroom Management Framework that is being developed using the most up-to-date research and the input of experts.