CAEP Annual Reporting Measures
CAEP (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation) has eight annual reporting measures which are used to provide information to the public on program impact and program outcomes. Below are the eight reporting measures for Ottawa University EPP’s initial and advanced programs with links to data tables and information that provide supporting evidence for each measure.
1. Impact on P-12 learning and development
(Component 4.1)
Ottawa University’s EPP works closely with its completers to collect valid and reliable assessment data regarding their impact on student learning. The EPP works with completers via focus groups to collect information demonstrating student learning growth. The School of Education is piloting and deploying a multi-level assessment system utilizing purposeful sampling to ensure completers from all programs will be represented. The EPP’s system also employs multiple research methodologies. When fully implemented, the School will provide rich data describing impact on P-12 student learning through case studies and focus group results compiled over a three-year period. Additionally, the School is engaged in an ambitious project exploring the working lives of early career teachers. We believe this work provides a research component capable of offering a clearer perspective, both in terms of capturing the impact our completers establish in their classrooms as well as providing evidence of our efforts to improve our programs.
Since Kansas and Arizona are non-reporting states regarding P-12 student learning and development by teacher education completers, it is the goal of the EPP to offer alternative ways in which completer impact on P-12 learning and development can be obtained by the EPP. To meet that goal, the EPP recently piloted the collection of data to accumulate relevant information regarding the influence EPP completers have concerning P-12 student learning and development. The EPP hosted the first focus group in the Spring of 2020.
Educator Disposition Assessment Pilot (Fall 2019)
In Fall 2019, the first (one-year) pilot report from the Via by Watermark system established data regarding Educator Disposition Assessments. In that report 29 participants in the School of Education relayed the following:
- 72.41% self-report they are meeting expectations regarding demonstrating effective oral and written communication skills while 27.59 report they are developing the same skill sets (InTASC Standards 4 and 9).
- 79.31% self-report meeting expectations regarding demonstrating professionalism and a positive and enthusiastic attitude based on the Danielson and Marzano frameworks in supporting effective teaching and improving student leading (InTASC Standards 6, 3, and 9).
- 72.41% self-report meeting expectations regarding demonstrating preparedness in teaching and learning while 27.59% of the candidate participants feel they are developing skill sets in that area (InTASC Standards 4, 5, 7 and 8).
- 75.86% self-report exhibiting an appreciation of and value for cultural and academic diversity while 24.14% believe their skill is more in development (Danielson, Marzano & InTASC Standard 3).
- 68.97% self-report collaborating effectively with stakeholders, while 31.03% believe this skill is developing (Danielson, Marzano, and InTASC Standards 3(n), 7(o) and 10(k).
- 55.17% self-reported believe as candidates that they demonstrate self-regulated learner behavior and take initiatives (Danielson, Marzano, and InTASC Standards 1, 2, 9 & 10). 44.83% self-report a need to continue to work on this skill set: and 75.86% self-report they are exhibiting the social and emotional intelligence to promote personal and educational goals and stability while 24.14% of candidates believe this area is developing (InTASC Standards 1, 2, 3 and 7).
2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness
(Component 4.2)
The case study and focus group assessment system described above is designed to also gather data concerning completer teaching effectiveness. In addition, the EPP collects valid and reliable assessment data by utilizing instrumentation such as student teacher evaluations (used by our clinical faculty), an Educator Disposition Assessment priority assessment instrument, signature assignments, monitoring of GPA transition points, and state exams which show an effective level of performance by our licensure candidates. In addition, throughout their entire program of study, candidates are exposed to academic research in coursework and use both observational and practicum experiences to gain current, real-world knowledge of the profession: historical and philosophical foundations, aspects of developmental psychology, researched-based methods, the art and science of teaching, and data-driven strategies.
All teacher education candidates must complete all transition points throughout their program of study including field experiences. Research-based activities in the foundational courses and student teaching encompasses aspects of ethics, standards, and laws. Just as transition points to are used to monitor progress, so do the assessments and time allotted to field experiences from related practicum and student teaching lessons. In addition, both assessments used in lesson evaluation have a teaching disposition component. Prior to student teaching, the candidates also take a Code of Professionalism Exam based on the "KSDE Educator Code of Conduct.”
In the Spring of 2019, the EPP selected, through discussion and research, what the EPP believes to be a reliable system for disposition assessment: "Educator Disposition Assessment" (EDA - propriety assessment instrument within the Via by Watermark platform). The EDA instrument was piloted during the Fall of 2019 in which the candidates initiate a self-assessment of their dispositions, student teachers were evaluated by their university supervisors upon exit, and in the Spring of 2020, the incoming student teachers were evaluated by faculty. Results demonstrate a high level of achievement of candidates scoring largely in the “meets” or “proficient” categories of the InTASC areas: learner development, learning differences, content knowledge and application of content, assessment, instructional planning, instructional strategies, and ethical practices and professional development.
The InTASC Signature Assignment data is a set of progression data. Completers from the new data set had yet to complete a full cycle of data at that time. In prior years, all candidates were (and are still required) to complete Signature Assignments with a grade of “B” or higher. Candidates who failed to score a grade of “B” or higher were placed on a Individualized Review Plan. This plan provides guidance to the candidate to complete the Signature Assignments per progression needs. If the candidate is unsuccessful, the candidate is removed from the program. Therefore, all completers (2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19) have scored a “B” or higher on their Signature Assignments.
InTASC Signature Assignment Assessment 2019
State exams also demonstrate an effective level of performance by our licensure candidates. In addition, throughout their entire program of study, candidates are exposed to academic research in coursework and use both observational and practicum experiences to gain current, real-world knowledge of the profession: historical and philosophical foundations, aspects of developmental psychology, researched-based methods, the art and science of teaching, and data-driven strategies.
State Exams – Kansas 2018-2019
State Exams - Kansas 2018-2019
| OUMW |
State-KS (Pass)
Principles of Learning &
Teaching >=160 (P/F) |
State-MW (Pass)
Subject Knowledge Score
Varies by Exam |
| Pass |
14 (87.5%) |
16 (100%) |
| Fail |
2 (12%) |
0 |
No Score
Reported |
3 |
3 |
State Exams – Arizona 2018-2019
State Exams - Arizona 2018-2019
| OUAZ |
State AZ Professional
Knowledge: K-12 >= 160
(AEPA) SED/NES >=220
(P/F) |
State AZ Subject
Knowledge: K-3 >= 240;
K-8 >= 220 (AEPA) SED/NES
>=220 (P/F) |
| Pass |
9 (60%) |
10 (83.3%) |
| Fail |
6 (40%) |
2 (6.7%) |
No Score
Reported |
13 |
16 |
3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones
(Component 4.3 | A.4.1)
AY 2018-19 Employer Survey Report
The EPP’s principal survey regarding the teacher education completers is aligned to the InTASC, and the 2019 results portray the following:
- A total of 8 principals respond of 50 total sent surveys (or 16% response).
Learner and Learning (Development and the Learning Environment)
- Question Item 2: 7 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
- Question Item 5: 4 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
Content (Content and Reading Instruction)
- Question Item 1: 7 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
- Question Item 3: 6 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
Instruction (Reading Instruction, Assessment, and Technology Instruction)
- Question Item 3: 6 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
- Question Item 4: 7 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
- Question Item 7: 8 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared.
Professional Responsibility (Colleagues, Peers, Parents, Community, Ethics and Reflection)
- Question Item 6: 6 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared
- Question Item 8: 6 of 8 felt the completers were prepared or very well prepared
- Question Item 9 is open-ended for reporting other reflective engagement thoughts.
Comments from principals include:
- (Name omitted) “uses continuous professional development.”
- (Name omitted) “is awesome! She’s one the very best hires I’ve ever made!”
- (Name omitted) “does a fantastic job. Once the best I have worked with. Great instincts.”
(Component 4.4 | A.4.2)
A ten-question survey was developed using Kansas State Department of Education professional and content standards including the standards of InTASC. The survey is sent out using email with a link to SurveyMonkey® to 1st and 3rd year initial program teacher education completers and to 1st and 3rd year advanced candidates/completers. These questions are similar to the questions used with the principals. Using a Likert Scale, respondents specified their level of agreement regarding their preparedness for the profession using the following scale: (0) Not at all prepared; (1) Somewhat prepared; (2) Neutral; (3) Prepared; and (4) Very well prepared. Verbiage was adjusted to speak to the years of experience (first or third).
The survey is sent to the email addresses twice with a reminder to complete the survey if they had not done so from the first contact. The survey is approved by the university’s IRB, was completely anonymous and voluntary. The response rate for first-year teachers was 10/26 or 38% and third-year teachers resulted in 7/24 or 29%. The response rate for first year principals was 4/26 or 15%; and the response rate for third year principals resulted in 4/24 or 17%.
2018-19 Survey to 1st & 3 year Completers – Alumni in the Profession
Questions: 9 & 10 – Open Ended: Thinking about the need for reflection and life-long learning, what steps do you think would be beneficial for educators to take?
- Educators need to know they will continue to learn, grow and change each year and so will students. In today's classroom the students come with more trauma and behavioral needs. New educators need to be prepared for this as much as they do for daily instruction.
- Continuous professional development.
- Helping teachers to become more aware of what is happening in the classroom between students, teaching them what to look for and how to respond.
- Most educators get a basic understanding of reading instruction. They need more on how to look and break down data to determine specific reading needs.
In this survey, first-year teacher results found that five responses were below 4 but above 3.5 except for question 8 (as stated above) in which the overall score was 3.2. Responses from the third-year teachers are positive and show educators committed to the profession by their responses, indicating continuing professional development through district activities and seeking advanced degrees.
Though none of the evidence pointed directly to immediate program change needed, the EPP reviewed the results, and after consulting with the School of Education and advisory boards, lead faculty made adjustments in some courses, especially to the student teaching blocks and to EDU 30731 Teaching Procession I to assist with direct concerns around data demands and parent communication mentioned in the comments of the survey section. In addition, the EPP determined that continued review and revisions to courses were needed regarding reading instruction, especially in phonics in response to candidate comments and state standard-based changes. Additional School of Education and advisory meetings (alumni and stakeholder program groups) meetings are held throughout the year to review needs and forecast upcoming course changes in the next annual cycle.
Candidates reported on the survey:
- (Name omitted) “I think it was a great program and I have no qualms or issues.”
- (Name omitted) “I had an excellent experience from Ottawa University. Overall, I felt well-prepared.”
Completers also report that they are continuing with their education, using reflection to make instructional adjustments, and seeking constant peer feedback. Overall, the principals are reporting satisfaction with our completers. However, the EPP realizes the need to continue to work on the instruction of reading, assessment practices and professional reflection leading to professional development. The EPP has continued to work to tool the program courses to assist with these needs.
Candidates in the initial teacher education programs must successfully meet several requirements and are expected to apply to the School of Education usually in their Junior year. After that, in most cases, teacher education requirements will be completed from 2 to 2 1/2 years. The following table, extrapolated from qualified seniors for Initial program candidates, includes the following: Early Childhood, P-12, Elementary and Secondary education majors in the School of Education.
The first table signifies the number of teacher education candidates from Title II indicating the number of graduating seniors both cumulatively and then by campus geographic location identified in our self-study. The second chart denotes the number of advance candidates cumulatively and then by campus geographic location.
The second table includes advanced program candidates which include School Psychology, School Counseling and Education Leadership.
Graduation Rate 2018-2019
6. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced levels)
Teacher Education candidates are required to fulfill the following requirements prior to being offered an Institutional Recommendation indicating readiness for licensure/certification:
- Full acceptance into the Education Program;
- Fulfillment of all Basic Skill exam requirements;
- Completion of all required coursework with a grade of "C" or better in all Pre-Professional/Professional Education and content area coursework, excluding Teaching Profession I/Early Childhood Foundations grade requirement of “B” or better;
- Attain minimum GPA of 3.0 or better in all Pre-Professional/Professional Education and content area coursework;
- Minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0;
- Attainment of an AVP fingerprint clearance (AZ) or background check (KS);
- Successful passing of state licensure/certification exams;
- Proof of liability insurance prior to Student Teaching;
- Completion of 20-hours of community service identified on the appropriate form;
- Completion of the disposition evaluation;
- Successful completion the student teaching experience with a GPA of 3.0 or higher; and
- Completion of the program exit interview.
The chart on the website below signifies both initial and advanced program candidates indicating the scores for Professional and Subject Knowledge tests. In 2018-2019, all advanced candidates meet licensing requirements. In addition, the second chart (attached demonstrates candidate content area GPA disaggregated by program clusters based on low enrollment for programs 2017-2019. A university licensure/certification officer is appointed by the EPP to oversee all requirements.
State Exams – Kansas 2018-2019
State Exams - Kansas 2018-2019
| OUMW |
State-KS (Pass) Principles
of Learning & Teaching
>=160 (P/F) |
State-MW (Pass) Subject
Knowledge Score Varies
by Exam |
| Pass |
14 (87.5%) |
16 (100%) |
| Fail |
2 (12%) |
0 |
No Score
Reported |
3 |
3 |
State Exams – Arizona 2018-2019
State Exams - Arizona 2018-2019
| OUAZ |
State AZ Professional
Knowledge: K-12 >= 160
(AEPA) SED/NES >=220
(P/F) |
State AZ Subject
Knowledge: K-3 >= 240;
K-8 >= 220 (AEPA) SED/NES
>=220 (P/F) |
| Pass |
9 (60%) |
10 (83.3%) |
| Fail |
6 (40%) |
2 (6.7%) |
No Score
Reported |
13 |
16 |
Mean and GPA ranges for Initial and Advanced program 2017-18 & 2018-19
7. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)
The EPP serves teacher education candidates and advanced-level staff in both Kansas (OUMW) and Arizona (OUAZ). Qualifications (depending on the program) includes holding a valid teaching license from that state with a bachelor's degree or an advanced degree and successful completion of the state approved teacher preparation program. The EPP is regionally accredited, and each (individual) program is approved by the states of Kansas and Arizona as applicable. As noted above, seeking licensure/certification is a challenging yet rewarding endeavor.
2018-2019 Completers
70% of Kansas completers (undergraduate only) reported having a school contract within one month of completion. 3% of the Kansas completers went on to graduate school after completion and did not pursue a teaching position within the first two years of completion. The other completers chose not to report.
81% of Arizona completers (undergraduate and graduate) reported having a school contract within the second week of completion. The other completers chose not to report.
8. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced levels)
Student Loan Default Rates
2015 7.6%
2016 6.8%
2017 8.1%
2018
Due to COVID, the federal reports for the data for 2018-19 have yet to be reported to the university.
Cost of Attendance