Skip to Content Request Info

CAEP Annual Reporting Measures

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

CAEP Annual Reporting Measures

 

In response to NCTQ, please see the following information from our AACTE partnership:

https://aacte.org/resources/nctq/

Ottawa University
CAEP Reporting Measures
2020-2021

Programs reviewed by CAEP in October 2020

 

Initial Programs --

Early Childhood/Early Childhood Special Education

Elementary Education

Secondary Education: Biology, Business, English, History, Mathematics, Music (Vocal & Instrumental)

Art Education

Music Education: Vocal and Instrumental

Physical Education

 

Advanced Programs --

Educational Leadership (MAEd) – is now labeled as School Leadership (2022-2023 catalog)

School Counseling (MAEd)

School Psychology (EdS)

 

Measure 1 {Initial): Completer effectiveness. {R4.1 ) Data must address: (a) completer impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth AND (b) completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

 

(a) Completer impact in contributing to P-12 student learning and growth.

2nd Focus Group

Spring 2022

Ten graduates from the initial licensure program were interviewed in the Spring 2022. The graduates reported the current issues regarding instructing during the CoVID times as well as aspects regarding all ten InTASC standards. Though they had yet to receive their classroom state exam results, they shared how their students were gaining positive results on meeting mastery on unit exams due to compacting their most specifically their mathematics curriculum. They discussed how they had worked on creating caring learning environments through engagement of families. They believed their preservice years helped to cultivate their ability to empower resilience and flexibility. They encouraged the faculty to continue to create professional development for ELL needs, the science of reading strands, and social-emotional needs.

 

(b) Completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Focus Reviews: Stronge Checklist Evaluations

In addition to focus groups, lesson reviews were conducted on our graduates by our education faculty. The same evaluation system was used to review the graduates ability to impact student learning as used in our preservice program. The propriety assessment used is a progression assessment is used for evaluation on preservice teachers and career teachers.

 

Spring 2022

Graduates in the review for Spring 2022 demonstrated positive results in student growth. Data accountability and positive learning environment classrooms were recognized. The graduates use critical thinking, higher level questioning, metacognitive strategies, technology tools, and developmentally appropriate practices. Site administrators commented about the resilience of these graduates. Some candidates in the secondary education program shared that their reviews did ask for some additional use of classroom management strategies. This might be do to the lack of some face-to-face time in the first year of the graduates’ career experiences.

 

Measure 2 {Initial and Advanced): Satisfaction of employers and stakeholder involvement. {R4.2IRS.3I RA4.1) Data provided should be collected on employers' satisfaction with program completers.

 

Spring 2022

Employer and Stakeholder Satisfaction Results

Survey Results

Overall, the program results are within the acceptable levels. No questions fell below the weighted average of 3.0. The principals of first year teachers return was low – but the weighted average of questions was all above 3.1. Third-year principal’s responses were all above the 4.0 mark. Their comments centered again around state level focus, and the aspects of training required by the state. Overall, the third-year principals noted highly skilled teachers.

 

The continued emphasis on lifelong learning and self-reflection continues to be noted. Some of the major themes noted in the short answer and open-ended questions included: management and reading strategies noticed in new curriculum. These are all areas that seem to come up frequently and seem to be trending in research as well. There are no strong areas for consideration by the university, but the results will be reviewed to continue shaping a responsive and rigorous program that will prepare preservice teachers to be effective classroom teachers.

 

Employers/Principals:

Year-One -- N=7

Year-Two -- N=10

 

Measure 3 {Initial and Advanced): Candidate competency at completion. {R3.3) Data provided should relate to measures the EPP is using to determine if candidates are meeting program expectations and ready to be recommended for licensure. (E.g.: EPP's Title II report, data that reflect the ability of EPP candidates to meet licensing and state requirements or other measures the EPP uses to determine candidate competency at completion.)

 

Title 2 OUKS Trad 2020-2021

Title 2 OUAZ Trad 2020-2021

Title 2 OUAZ Alt 2020-2021

 

Measure 4 {Initial and Advanced): Ability of completers to be hired (in positions for which they have prepared.)

 

The EPP serves teacher education candidates and advanced-level staff in both Kansas and Arizona. Qualifications (depending on the program) include holding a valid teaching license from that state with a bachelor's degree or an advanced degree as well as a 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.

 

2020-2021 Completers

91% of Kansas completers (undergraduate only) reported having a school contract within two months of completion. 5% 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.

 

93% of Arizona completers (undergraduate and graduate) reported having a school contract within two months of completion. The other completers chose not to report.

CAEP Annual Reporting Measures

Ottawa University

CAEP Reporting Measures

2019-2020

 

Programs reviewed by CAEP in October 2020

Initial Programs --

Early Childhood/Early Childhood Special Education

Elementary Education

Secondary Education: Biology, Business, English, History, Mathematics, Music (Vocal & Instrumental)

Art Education

Music Education: Vocal and Instrumental

Physical Education

 

Advanced Programs --

Educational Leadership (MAEd)

School Counseling (MAEd)

School Psychology (EdS)

 

 

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 deployed 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. Once fully implemented, the School provides 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 continues to engage 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 collects data to accumulate relevant information regarding the influence EPP completers have concerning P-12 student learning and development.

Focus groups discussed questions around the InTASC standards and the relationship their impact on student learning:

1) Learner development

2) Learner differences

3) Learning environments

4) Content knowledge

5) Application of content

6) Assessment

7) Planning for instruction

8) Instructional strategies

9) Professional learning and ethical practice

10) Leadership and collaboration

 

Focus Groups

Spring 2020

1st Focus Group

Nine graduates were interviewed in the Spring 2020. The graduates reported that they felt confident in all ten InTASC standards. They shared specifically that the student in their classrooms were gaining positive results on assessments. In addition, they shared that their content understanding, tones of the learning environment and knowledge of learners assisted their abilities in producing applicable instruction that results in positive student progress and student performance. One aspect that they asked for from the faculty was to have additional support meetings in the future just to continue to share insights and ideas about improving the education and teaching world.

Focus Groups

Spring 2021

2nd Focus Group

Ten graduates were interviewed in the Spring 2021. The graduates reported the current issues regarding instructing in the CoVID times and their thoughts regarding all ten InTASC standards. Though they had yet to receive their state exam results, they shared how their students were gaining positive results on meeting mastery on unit exams. They also commented about they had worked to create a positive environment for their online and ground-based learners. They particularly discussed how they had worked on creating an inclusive learning environment through uses of various technologies. Confidence and appropriate experiences gained during their preservice years assisted with this ability to be flexible in their learning environment given. The encourage the university to continue to have professional development for ELL needs and social-emotional needs.

Focus Reviews: Stronge Checklist Evaluations

In addition to focus groups, lesson reviews were conducted on our graduates by our education faculty. The same evaluation system was used to review the graduates ability to impact student learning as used in our preservice program. The propriety assessment used is a progression assessment is used for evaluation on preservice teachers and career teachers.

Spring 2020

Graduates reviewed in Spring 2020 (and Fall 2019) showed progress and positive results in student growth. Data accountability was noted in their classrooms. Metacognitive strategies were apparent in questing and lesson design. Technology use and developmentally appropriate lesson construction was evident. Site administrators reported that they were pleased with these graduates.

Spring 2021

Graduates reviewed in Spring 2021 demonstrated positive results in student growth. Data accountability and positive learning environment cultures were established. The graduates were using higher level questioning, metacognitive strategies, technology applications and developmentally appropriate practices. Site administrators commented about the resilience of these graduates in this uncertain, challenging time.

Advanced program focus groups summaries:

Fall 2020

School Counseling Program Focus Group Survey Results

Of the 66 graduates between the years of 2016-2020, contact information was located for 52 individuals. Twenty-four respondents, representing seventeen different Arizona school districts, answered the survey which was made available over a period of one month.

When rating their comfort level on a scale of 1-5, respondents reported:

Area

1

2

3

4

5

Individual Counseling

 

4%

12%

42%

42%

Group Counseling

16%

12%

16%

46%

10%

Classroom Guidance

4%

n/a

12%

46%

38%

 

When rating their impact on a scale of 1-5, respondents reported:

Area

1

2

3

4

5

Student Achievement

n/a

4%

33%

33%

29%

Student Attendance

4%

8%

42%

46%

n/a

Student Behavior

4%

4%

33%

46%

12%

 

The 24 respondents reported fulfilling the following leadership iroles within their current employment:

Position

Number

Lead counselor

6

Part of administrative team or instructional cabinet

4

Part of the PBIS leadership team

4

Members of district-level teams or committees

3

 

Spring 2021

School Psychology graduates provided their recommendation letters from their supervisors for evaluation. Their recommendation letters discussed their ability to monitor and use data for assessments and outcome needs. The supervisors also expressed leadership and willingness to learn and reflect on school processes and progress of the learners. These candidates are considered positive contributors to the school and districts student needs.

 

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), Disposition Assessments (priority assessment instruments), 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 (initial and advanced) 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.”

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, 2018-19, & 2019-20) have scored a “B” or higher on their Signature Assignments.

Candidates also

 

3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones
(Component 4.3 | A.4.1)

2019-20

Survey Results

Overall, the program results are within the acceptable levels. No questions fell below the weighted average of 3.0. The principals of first year teachers return was low – but the weighted average of questions was all above 3.33. The comments noted regarded learning to use technology and communication skills notably with parents. Third-year principal’s responses were all above the 4.0 mark. Their comments centered around getting in the field early during training and particularly noted dyslexia training, which is a new focus at the state level. Overall, the third-year principals noted highly skilled teachers.

The continued emphasis on lifelong learning and reflection is noted in many responses. Some of the major themes noted in the short answer and open-ended questions included: management, use of data/assessment, and reading strategies. These are all areas that seem to come up frequently and seem to be trending. There are no strong areas for consideration by the university, but the results will be reviewed to continue shaping a responsive and rigorous program that will prepare preservice teachers to be effective classroom teachers.

Future

A continued effort will be made to track graduates not in the state of Kansas by self-report of the graduates and to increase response rate. Also, some way to increase the response rate by shareholders would be a great addition. Continuing to get the survey out earlier, which is limited due to state reporting parameters, would be good. The response rate is always lower than desired. Any needed changes to the survey to fall in line with new standards and conditions will also be continually considered. This year was especially challenging due to the shortened school year and the novel corona virus.

Employers/Principals:

Year-One -- N=3

Year-Two -- N=12

 

4. Satisfaction of completers
(Component 4.4 | A.4.2)

2019-20

Survey Results

The 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 higher level degrees (master’s). These veteran teachers mentioned technology and reading strategies of areas to focus on.  For first year teachers, the lowest average weighted score was question 8 (Thinking about all the added demands in education today (testing, record keeping, working with parents, differentiation, meetings, federal and state guidelines) in the classroom, do you think you were:). This score was 3. The comments mentioned classroom management/organization as an area to emphasize as well as more observations/hands-on experiences in classroom.

Completers:

Year-One -- N=4

Year-Two -- N=6

 

5. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels)

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.

Our School Psychology program takes 3 to 4 years to complete. The School Counseling and Educational Leadership program take 1 1/2 to 2 years to complete.

Graduation Rates (initial and advances – all candidates):

2018-19

N= 288 all candidates/81 graduates = 28.12% graduated in 2018-19

2019-20

N=327 all candidates/84 graduates = 25.69% graduated in 2019-20

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 (initial program);
  • 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 (initial program);
  • Attain minimum GPA of 3.0 or better in all Pre-Professional/Professional Education and content area coursework (initial program);
  • 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 (initial program);
  • 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 below signifies both initial candidates indicating the scores for Professional and Subject Knowledge tests for 2019-20. In light of COVID, not all candidates took the exam.

In 2019-2020, all advanced candidates met licensing requirements.

A university licensure/certification officer is appointed by the EPP to oversee all requirements.

State Exams - Kansas 2019-2020

OUMW

State-KS (Pass) Principles
of Learning & Teaching
>=160 (P/F)

State-MW (Pass) Subject
Knowledge Score Varies
by Exam

Pass

 26

 27

Fail

 3

 2

No Score
Reported

 N/A

 N/A

 

State Exams - Arizona 2019-2020

OUAZ

State AZ Professional
Knowledge: K-12 >= 160
(AEPA) SED/NES >=220
(P/F)

State-AZ (Pass) Subject
Knowledge Score Varies
by Exam

Pass

 16

 19

Fail

 3

 0

No Score Reported

 4

 0

 

 

Title II Reports:

Kansas

2021 Title II Report for Academic Year 2019-2020

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016

2016 Title II Report for Academic Year 2014-2015

2015 Title II Report for Academic Year 2013-2014

Arizona

2021 Title II Report for Academic Year 2019-2020 - Traditional

2021 Title II Report for Academic Year 2019-2020 - Alternative

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019 - Traditional

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019 - Alternative

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018 - Traditional

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018 - Alternative

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017 - Traditional

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017 - Alternative

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016 - Traditional

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016 - Alternative

 

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.

2019-2020 Completers

97% of Kansas completers (undergraduate and graduates only) reported having a school contract within three months of completion. The other completers chose not to report.

94% of Arizona completers (undergraduate and graduate) reported having a school contract within a month of completion. The other completers chose not to report.

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)

Default Rates

2015

7.6%

2016

6.8 %

2017

8.1 %

2018

N/A

2019

N/A

 

Due to COVID pandemic, the federal reports for the data for 2018-19 and 2019-20 have yet to be reported to the university.

 

 

 

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.”

 

4. Satisfaction of completers

(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.

 

5. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels)

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

 

Title II Reports:

Kansas

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016

2016 Title II Report for Academic Year 2014-2015

2015 Title II Report for Academic Year 2013-2014

Arizona

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019 - Traditional

2020 Title II Report for Academic Year 2018-2019 - Alternative

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018 - Traditional

2019 Title II Report for Academic Year 2017-2018 - Alternative

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017 - Traditional

2018 Title II Report for Academic Year 2016-2017 - Alternative

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016 - Traditional

2017 Title II Report for Academic Year 2015-2016 - Alternative

 

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 

Back to top
/Academics/School-of-Education/Reporting-Measures