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.

Educator Preparation at Cameron University is incredibly proud of our responsiveness to recent local, national, and world events. We have effective systems in place that enable us to involve all stakeholders in a timely way to make necessary adjustments and changes. These have been especially notable as we have faced teacher shortages, a global pandemic, and social issues. Our dedicated faculty are committed to continued learning and growth for themselves and candidates which has led to necessary changes in curriculum and instruction such as trauma-informed instruction, dyslexia, anti-racism/abolitionist teaching, and virtual teaching and learning. Cameron Ed Prep works to lead from the heart as we all deal with the pandemic. This has meant regular and clear communication, virtual options for learning and field experiences, attention to well-being, and flexibility all while maintaining the rigor that makes our program effective.

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 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 geographically nearest school partners who are teaching in the field for which they were prepared.

Twenty-eight cases have been documented with 8 early childhood, 13 elementary, 4 English, 2 social studies, and 1 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 (TLE) 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.

The Oklahoma State Board of Education has waived the parts of the TLE that provide data on our completers for 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. Below is data from the 2018-2019 TLE for three completer cohorts.   


1-year out (17-18 completers)

N=42

2-years out

(16-17 completers)

N=37

3-years out

(15-16 completers)

N=22

Domain 1: Classroom Management

3.49

3.62

3.75

Domain 2: Instructional Effectiveness

3.21

3.56

3.64

Domain 3: Professional Growth

3.61

3.70

3.80

Domain 4: Interpersonal Skills

3.55

3.68

3.91

Domain 5: Professional Involvement & Leadership

3.24

3.43

3.64


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).

The 2020 survey was sent to the employers of 46 program completers from 2018-2019 who were in the first year of teaching in Oklahoma with 39% returning the survey. 

Category

Agree or Strongly Agree

The Learner and Learning

99.1%

Content

100%

Instructional Practice

96.8%

Professional Responsibility

97.8%


Additionally, during the 2019-2020 school year Lawton Public Schools named five Cameron University education graduates were nominated as Rookie of the Year (for first year teachers), and three of the seven finalists for Teacher of the Year completed 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). The 2020 survey was sent to 46 program completers from 2018-2019 who were in the first year of teaching in Oklahoma with 33% returning the survey.  

Category

Agree or Strongly Agree

The Learner and Learning

96.7%

Content 

89.3%

Instructional Practice

90.7%

Professional Responsibility

88.6%


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. The initial exit survey was revised in 2019-202 to include items focused on high leverage practices and EPP initiatives and aligned with InTASC standards. The mean score across all those items was 3.59 on a 4-point scale indicating that program completers believe that Cameron’s program prepared them well or mostly well. Among those items, completers identified the following areas of strength in terms of their preparation: explain and model content, practices, and strategies; build respectful relationships with students; design lessons and sequences of lessons; check for student understanding; and select and use formal assessment. Additional strengths of Cameron University’s educator preparation identified by completers include faculty responsiveness and use of technology along with encouraging and making time for reflection.

The exit survey given to completers of the M.Ed. in Reading program includes items aligned to the ILA standards and subcomponents. Across all these items, program completers in 2019-2020 rated Cameron’s program as 3.87 on a 4-point scale with 100% of completers noting that faculty valued their learning; supported reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving; and integrated technology into instruction. M.S. in Educational Leadership program completers scored the program overall a 3.85 on a 4-point scale on items aligned to the ELCC standards. Completers of this program also noted strengths in preparing them to demonstrate caring, competence, and commitment in working with students, families, and communities and that field experiences allowed them to demonstrate knowledge and skills with support from university and school-based faculty.

In summer 2020 a follow-up survey was sent to 50 program completers in the M.S. in Educational Leadership program who currently hold leadership positions with 26 responding (52%). Overall survey results indicated that these leaders felt that the program prepared them well or mostly in each of the current educational leadership standard (NELP) areas with particular strengths noted in developing a mission, vision and processes of continuous improvement as well as creating a supportive, equitable and cultural relevant school culture. One respondent commented, “The many opportunities provided in each class to network and collaborate with other future and current school leaders was immeasurable. The people who went through the program with me and those who mentored me as well, continue to be my "go to" people when I need to ask advice or share new ideas.”

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. Initial candidates generally complete their degrees four semesters after being admitted to the educator preparation program; advanced candidates in educational leadership generally complete after three semester; advanced candidates in reading generally complete after five semesters. 

Number of Semesters from Admission to Completion 



Year

Mean

Median

Range

Initial Programs

19-20

4.7

4

3-7


18-19

3.5

3

2-6

Educational Leadership (Adv)

19-20

3.26

3

2-12


18-19

3.6

3

2-5

Reading (Adv)

19-20

5.8

6

4-8

 

18-19

4.7

5

3-6


Ability of completers to meet licensing and any additional state standards

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


Exam

Year

N

Cameron Pass Rate

State Pass Rate

Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET)^

19-20

43

69.8%

79.8%


18-19

39

71.4%

79.1%


17-18

54

88.9%

85%

Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT)





Early Childhood Education

19-20

14

50%

67.6%


18-19

16

68.8%

51.7%


17-18

21

61.9%

54.2%

Elementary Subtest 1

19-20

24

95.8%

93.1%


18-19

37

94.6%

85.1%


17-18

22

95.5%

84.6%

Elementary Subtest 2

19-20

21

90.5%

80.8%


18-19

41

85.4%

76.4%


17-18

22

90.9%

77.5%

English

19-20

4

100%

68.8%


18-19

2

100%

61.2%


17-18

3

100%

60.4%

Music – Instrumental

19-20

1

100%

90.2%


18-19

0

-

-


17-18

0

-

-

Music – Vocal

19-20

0

-

-


18-19

1

0%

62.7%


17-18

1

100%

59.3%

US History/OK History/Govt/Econ

19-20

5

60%

85.7%


18-19

11

90.9%

76.5%


17-18

6

66.7%

74.6%

Special Education

(Mild/Moderate Disabilities)

19-20

0

-

-


18-19

0

-

-


17-18

2

100%

72.7%

Elementary Principal*

19-20

9

33%

69%


18-19

4

50%

62.4%


17-18

20

70%

67.9%

Secondary Principal*

19-20

10

50%

62.7%


18-19

8

37.5%

62.1%


17-18

13

69.2

62.8%

Reading Specialist*

19-20

1

100%

100%


18-19

2

100%

100%


17-18

4

100%

91.4%

Oklahoma Professional Teaching Exam

(OPTE)





Grades PK-8

19-20

8

75%

89.3%


18-19

23

91.3%

82.4%


17-18

38

97.4%

81.8%

Grades 6-12

19-20

2

100%

94.9%


18-19

9

100%

94.8%

 

17-18

17

100%

94.7%

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

*Advanced programs

~An optional test for candidates who do not wish to use their PPAT scores for certification

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). Candidates piloted the PPAT with local scoring in spring 2018 and fall 2018. All candidates have been required to complete the PPAT with national scoring since spring 2019, however, candidates will be able to choose between using those scores or OPTE scores for certification through spring 2021. Through spring 2020, the state passing score for PPAT was 38 out of 60 possible.

Data are provided for all candidates with disaggregation by program. When this data is posted publicly, data will be removed for programs with fewer than 3 candidates in a given year to protect anonymity. Task 1 and Tasks 2, 3, & 4 are completed during different semester therefore N’s are not expected to match. Also, special Education is offered as an add-on to early childhood or elementary therefore candidates will count twice in disaggregation by program.

PPAT Task 1: Knowledge of Students and the Learning Environment

Local Scoring with 8 points possible/4 per step (state mean unavailable due to local scoring)


19-20


18-19



N

Mean

N

Mean

ALL PROGRAMS*





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

65

3.20

23

3.57

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

65

3.32

23

3.57

EARLY CHILDHOOD





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

12

3.35

6

3.5

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

12

3.12

6

3.5

ELEMENTARY





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

40

3.15

12

3.67

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

40

3.40

12

3.67

ENGLISH





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

4

3.55

1

4

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

4

3.58

1

4

MUSIC





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

2


0

-

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

2


0

-

SOCIAL STUDIES





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

7

2.91

4

3.25

Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

7

3.14

4

3.25

SPECIAL EDUCATION





Task 1 Step 1 Knowledge of Students

3

3.83

1


Task 1 Step 2 Resources and Procedures

3

3.2

1



PPAT Total Score (combined Tasks 2, 3 & 4)

National Scoring with 60 points possible

Passing = 38


19-20





18-19






N

Mean

CU Pass

State Mean

State Pass

N

Mean

CU Pass

State Mean

State Pass

All programs

54

43.61

90.7%

43.48

90.9%

19

41.53

80%

40.84

84%

Early Childhood

10

44.22

100%

-

-

6

42.83

83.3%

-

-

Elementary

30

45.04

92.9%

-

-

9

38.89

55.6%

-

-

English

5

47.20

100%

-

-

1



-

-

Music

1



-

-

0

-

-

-

-

Social Studies

8

34.50

50%

-

-

3

44.33

100%

-

-

Special Education

0

-

-

-

-

1



-

-


Task 2: Assessment and Data Collection to Measure and Inform Student Learning

National Scoring with 12 points possible/4 per step



19-20



18-19




N

Mean

State Mean

N

Mean

State Mean

ALL PROGRAMS







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

54

3.12

-

19

2.81

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

54

2.95

-

19

2.68

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

54

2.92

-

19

2.61

-

EARLY CHILDHOOD



-




Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

10

3.15

-

6

2.75

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

10

2.95

-

6

2.92

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

10

3.05

-

6

2.58

-

ELEMENTARY







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

30

3.16

-

9

2.78

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

30

2.91

-

9

2.39

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

30

2.86

-

9

2.44

-

ENGLISH







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

5

3.40

-

1

3.00

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

5

3.30

-

1

3.00

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

5

3.10

-

1

3.00

-

MUSIC







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

1


-

0

-

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

1


-

0

-

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

1


-

0

-

-

SOCIAL STUDIES







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

8

2.69

-

3

3.00

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

8

2.75

-

3

3.00

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting

8

2.75

-

3

3.00

-

SPECIAL EDUCATION







Task 2 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

0

-

-

1

2.00

-

Task 2 Step 2 Administering the Assessment & Analyzing the Data

0

-

-

1

2.50

-

Task 2 Step 3 Reflecting 

0

-

-

1

2.00

-


Task 3: Designing Instruction for Student Learning 

National Scoring with 16 points possible/4 per step



19-20



18-19




N

Mean

State Mean

N

Mean

State Mean

ALL PROGRAMS







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

54

2.96

-

19

2.84

-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

54

2.87

-

19

2.71

-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

54

2.96

-

19

2.63

-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

54

2.70

-

19

2.55

-

EARLY CHILDHOOD







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Assessment

10

2.50

-

6

2.83

-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

10

2.45

-

6

2.83

-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

10

2.65

-

6

2.83

-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

10

2.40

-

6

2.67

-

ELEMENTARY







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Lesson

30

3.16

-

9

2.78

-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

30

3.00

-

9

2.50

-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

30

3.10

-

9

2.33

-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

30

2.81

-

9

2.28

-

ENGLISH







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Lesson

5

3.00

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

5

3.20

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

5

3.10

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

5

2.80

-

1


-

MUSIC







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Lesson

1



0

-

-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

1



0

-

-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

1



0

-

-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

1



0

-

-

SOCIAL STUDIES







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Lesson

8

2.81

-

3

3.00

-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

8

2.75

-

3

3.00

-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

8

2.75

-

3

3.00

-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

8

2.63

-

3

3.00

-

SPECIAL EDUCATION







Task 3 Step 1 Planning the Lesson

0

-

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 2 The Focus Students

0

-

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 3 Analyzing Instruction

0

-

-

1


-

Task 3 Step 4 Reflecting

0

-

-

1


-


Task 4: Implementing and Analyzing Instruction to Promote Student Learning

National Scoring with 32 points possible/4 per step so that total scores count double in the overall score



19-20



18-19




N

Mean

State Mean

N

Mean

State Mean

ALL PROGRAMS







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

54

2.90

-

19

2.95

-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

54

2.87

-

19

2.68

-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

54

2.91

-

19

2.79

-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

54

2.86

-

19

2.87

-

EARLY CHILDHOOD







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

10

2.85

-

6

3.00

-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

10

2.75

-

6

2.83

-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

10

3.10

-

6

2.75

-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

10

2.65

-

6

3.00

-

ELEMENTARY







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

30

3.03

-

9


-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

30

2.98

-

9


-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

30

2.95

-

9


-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

30

3.00

-

9


-

ENGLISH







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

5

3.20

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

5

3.20

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

5

3.00

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

5

3.20

-

1


-

MUSIC







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

1



0

-

-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

1



0

-

-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

1



0

-

-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

1



0

-

-

SOCIAL STUDIES







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

8

2.25

-

3

0

-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

8

2.38

-

3

0

-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

8

2.44

-

3

0

-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

8

2.38

-

3

0

-

SPECIAL EDUCATION







Task 4 Step 1 Planning

0

-

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 2 Implementing the Plan

0

-

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 3 Understanding the Two Focus Students

0

-

-

1


-

Task 4 Step 4 Reflecting

0

-

-

1


-


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


Year

# of Graduates

% Seeking & Finding Employment

19-20

59

96%

18-19

44

100%

17-18

52

100%

16-17

68

100%

15-16

71

99%

14-15

61

97%

13-14

87

97%

12-13

58

98%

11-12

70

95%

10-11

92

99%

09-10

86

94%


For our advanced programs, we know that not all of our graduates choose to become certified in the area for which we have prepared them nor do all those who do certify choose to seek out employment in this new certification area. In summer 2020 a survey was sent to 50 program completers in the M.S. in Educational Leadership program who currently hold leadership positions with 26 responding (52%). We learned that the average time between completing the program and beginning work as a school leader was 1.25 years and that the 38.5% were working as assistant principals, 46% as building principals, and 15% as district-level administrators. Unfortunately the public schools in our region are no longer employing Reading Specialists so we have been unable to do the same for our M.Ed. in Reading program. 

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.


Cohort

Loan Default Rate

FY18 cohort

11.2%

FY17 cohort

14.3%

FY16 cohort

15.4%

FY15 cohort

15.7%

FY14 cohort

14.7%