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:
- Educator Preparation Council meetings – reviews of pertinent data by a group of program faculty, candidates, P-12 partners, and arts and sciences faculty
- 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:
- National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) – 2015 full unit
- Oklahoma Office of Educational Quality & Accountability (OEQA) – 2015 full unit
- 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.