Accreditation

Cameron University Educator Preparation is dedicated to program improvement through use of a robust assessment system, which systemically integrates the analysis of data by all stakeholders for the purpose of program improvement. Program data are collected and generated through the year. Program faculty analyze candidate data, identify areas for improvement and areas of strength, and develop and track progress on related action plans for program improvement for the following purposes:

Monthly

• Educator Preparation Council meetings – reviews of pertinent data by a group of program faculty, candidates, P-12 partners, and arts and sciences faculty

Annually

• Program Quality Improvement Report (PQIR) – an internal report that is reviewed by leadership and peer-reviewed by Cameron faculty members from outside the Department of Education
• Advisory Boards –meetings for each program involving program faculty, candidates, program completers, school-based faculty, and employers
• CAEP Annual Report – a review of select data provided to CAEP
• OEQA Annual Report – a report focused on meeting state requirements
• Title II Annual Report – a report of focused on federal expectations and requirements

Every Seven Years

• Program/State Program Review – a check of each program’s ability to meet national program standards occurring every seven years
• CAEP Full Review – a check that all of educator preparation is meeting national standards occurring every seven years

All Cameron educator preparation programs are recognized at the state and/or national level by the following:

Full Unit

• National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) – 2015 full unit
• Oklahoma Office of Educational Quality & Accountability (OEQA) – 2015 full unit

Individual Programs

• National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) – 2018 – music education
• National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) – 2012 – early childhood education
• Oklahoma Office of Educational Quality & Accountability (OEQA) – 2019 – educational leadership, elementary, English, reading, special education, social studies

Cameron’s strengths identified by accreditors across all programs include collecting and analyzing candidate data, using data for continuous improvement, collaboration with stakeholders in an “extraordinary way,” and the comprehensive use of writing and reflection activities focused on helping Cameron students support diverse learners. During the most recent state program review Cameron’s English Education program was awarded accreditation with distinction, the highest level possible.

CU has embraced the CAEP standards and is looking forward to equal success in its upcoming 2022 unit review. The following information is required as part of the CAEP annual report. Typically ed prep data are presented aggregated by program, broken down to the component level, and presented with ranges of scores as opposed to simple mean scores. This allows all reviewers to make a thorough review as they are better able to identify patterns of strength and weakness in the data. While the data reported annually to CAEP is aggregated, please know that the data has been examined at a finer level for the purpose of improving Cameron’s education programs.

Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4): The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

4.1 Impact on P-12 learning and development

Because the state of Oklahoma does not use student test scores as part of teacher evaluations, Cameron University is working with our school partners to conduct case studies of graduates during their first year of teaching.

Cameron’s case study is designed to meet CAEP 4.1 with a look at completers’ impact on students’ learning in the completer’s first year of teaching. Data collection draws largely on Task 4 prompts from the Praxis Performance Assessment of Teaching (PPAT) through interviews and collection of relevant artifacts. Current candidates serve as researchers as they engage in data collection during the semester prior to student teaching (when they will complete PPAT themselves). The case study process serves to strengthen candidates’ understanding of quality reflection on student learning. The fact that the completers have already completed PPAT during their own student teaching increases the quality of the reflections and transfer of PPAT knowledge to the candidates. Rooting the case study design in one of the Educator Preparation Provider’s (EPP) key assessments, and using candidates as researchers engages candidates in research and use of technology to meet CAEP requirements.

Specific elements addressed in the case studies include planning for instruction (goals & student background, instructional strategies, activities, and focus on two students’ strengths and challenges), teaching the lesson (instructional strategies, interacting with the students, and classroom management), and reflecting on the lesson (whole class and focus students’ evidence of learning).

Data collection for the case study began in 2018-2019 and included completers from our largest school partner (Lawton Public Schools) who are teaching in the field for which they were prepared. Twelve cases were documented with three in early childhood, five in elementary, three in English, and one in special education. Overall the cases provided evidence that 100% of the completers studied demonstrated a positive impact on student learning and an ability to use student learning data to improve instruction. 

4.2 Indicators of teaching effectiveness

Data from the Oklahoma Teacher-Leader Effectiveness evaluation shows how CU graduates performed as determined by observations from school administrators. Probationary teachers receive two evaluations, one by the end of each semester, with the teacher having the option to request a third evaluation. The TLE is the evaluation instrument used for all public school teachers in Oklahoma. The data from the TLE are provided by the Oklahoma State Department of Education and is based on a 4-point scale: (1) ineffective, (2) needs improvement, (3) effective, (4) highly effective, (5) Superior.

Mean scores indicate that candidates from all three cohorts perform between effective and highly effective on all domains of the TLE. Data across the cohorts look as expected with demonstrated growth across all domains with experience and highest levels of growth between first and second year in the classroom in areas of classroom management and instructional effectiveness. Overall mean scores for “establishes closure” are lowest, but they still fall well above effective and show only a single teacher scoring at needs improvement across all three cohorts. Highest mean scores were consistent across all cohorts for “student relations” ranging from 3.76 to 4.00 and “professional accountability” ranging from 3.67 to 3.95.

4.3 Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones

The Oklahoma Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) office has developed a statewide survey of administrators who have hired initial program completers for all educator preparation programs across the state. Surveys are deployed in late spring of the completer’s first year of teaching. Items align directly to the InTASC standards with employers rating the extent to which they agree that each item is true about the specified first year teacher on a 4-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4). One challenge remains for this data – the ability to verify that the teachers referred to in the survey are indeed EPP completers. One employer’s responses made reference to the teacher becoming certified through an emergency pathway so those data were discarded.

The 2019 survey was sent to the employers of 46 program completers from 2017-2018 who were in their first year of teaching and remained in Oklahoma. 43% of the employers returned the survey. Overall, 100% of employers either agreed (50%) or strongly agreed (50%) that Cameron University effectively prepared the identified program completer to have a positive impact on P12 student learning and development. While data show that one first year teacher was challenged in creating authentic learning experiences to engage learners, areas of strength according to employers were encouraging positive social interaction, active engagement, and self-motivation as well as integrating available technology effectively and appropriately into instruction.

Additionally, during the 2018-2019 school year Lawton Public Schools named six Cameron University education graduates were nominated as Rookie of the Year (for first year teachers), and six of the seven finalists for Teacher of the Year graduated from a Cameron University educator preparation program.

4.4 Satisfaction of completers

The Oklahoma Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) office has developed a statewide survey of first year teachers who have completed an initial educator preparation program. Surveys are deployed in late spring of the completer’s first year of teaching. Items align directly to the InTASC standards with completers rating the extent to which they agree that Cameron University prepared them to do each item on a 4-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4). One challenge remains for this data – the ability to verify that the teachers referred to in the survey are indeed EPP completers.

The 2019 survey was sent to 46 program completers from 2017-2018 who were in their first year of teaching and remained in Oklahoma. 37% of the teachers returned the survey. Overall, 100% of completers either agreed (24%) or strongly agreed (76%) that Cameron University effectively prepared them to have a positive impact on P12 student learning and development with completers rating all components as “agree” or “strongly agree.” Completers noted a program strength in their preparation to recognize that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.

Data from exit surveys given to all candidates at the conclusion of their programs indicate a high level of satisfaction of initial and advanced graduates. Across all initial programs, exit survey items focus on the extent to which Cameron’s program prepares candidates to meet InTASC standards through coursework and field experiences. The mean score provided by initial completers in 2018-2019 was 3.6 on a 4-point scale indicating that candidates feel that Cameron’s initial education program prepared them mostly or well to meet the InTASC standards. The exit survey completed by M.Ed. in Reading candidates includes items focused on the ILA standards. All completers in 2018-2019 rated Cameron’s reading specialist program as 4.0 on a 4-point scale for all ILA components meaning the program prepared them well on related knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The M.S. in Educational Leadership exit survey is based on the ELCC standards. The mean score provided by completers in 2018-2019 was 3.38 on a 4-point scale indicating that candidates feel that Cameron’s educational leadership program prepared them mostly or well to meet all ELCC components.

Outcome Measures: CAEP has determined that the following required reporting items are “of significance to stakeholders and consumers.”

Graduation Rates

As expected, candidate graduation rates depending upon student status (full-time vs. part-time), amount of transfer credit held, and willingness to take classes during the summer semester. Generally full-time initial candidates complete their degrees four semesters after being admitted to the educator preparation program. For the 2018-2019 initial program completers, the mean time from admission to completion was 3.5 semesters (range=2-6 semesters; media & mode=3 semesters). This rate of graduation aligns with that of the 2017-2018 cohort.

At the advanced level for 2018-2019, the mean time from admission to graduation for M.Ed. in Reading program completers was 4.7 semesters (range=3-6 semesters; median & mode=5 semesters). The mean time for M.S. in Educational Leadership program completers was 3.6 semesters (range=2-5 semesters; median & mode=3 semesters). These data align with those from the 2017-2018 cohort.

Ability of completers to meet licensing and any additional state standards

Certification Exam Pass Rates - Test Taker best attempt (rates provided by OEQA)

^Test redesigned with administration beginning 2/2019; pass rate includes both forms

*Advanced programs

Beginning spring 2019, Cameron’s initial candidates moved from demonstrating their professional abilities on a paper/pencil test—the OPTE—to a performance assessment—the Praxis Performance Assessment of Teaching (PPAT). Cameron piloted the PPAT with local scoring in part during spring 2018 and in full during fall 2018. Below is the performance of our first group of 19 candidates across all programs.

Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have been prepared

Cameron University is very proud of the hiring rates for our initial candidates. Evidence of advanced candidates being hired into positions aligned with their degrees will be available in 2019 as Cameron adds items regarding interviewing and job changes to follow-up surveys.

The following information shows the Cameron teacher education graduates who seek and find full-time employment in education following graduation.

Student Loan Default Rates

The following information shows the three-year cohort default rate for all Cameron University students. While some seem to view this data as an indication of the effectiveness of our program, we encourage you to look at the preceding information, particularly our graduates’ results on their teaching evaluations.