Skip Menu

CAEP Accountability Measures

MSU's Volgenau College of Education presents the following data as measures of accountability in accordance with the policies of our accrediting agency, the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation programs (CAEP). We are committed to utilizing these insights to constantly improve our programs and ensure the success of our students.

Measure 1 (Initial): Completer effectiveness

(R4.1) Data must address:

  1. completer impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth  AND 
  2. completer effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

EVIDENCE 1

The data and the tables in this spreadsheet represent data collected from principals across the state of Kentucky in the spring of 2023 from approximately mid-March to mid-June for three years (in some cases, four) for EPPs in the state of Kentucky.

KACTE/EPSB/UKY Statewide Principal Survey Results

The data and the tables in this spreadsheet represent data collected from principals across the state of Kentucky in the spring of 2023 from approximately mid-March to mid-June for three years (in some cases, four) for EPPs in the state of Kentucky.

Principal names and school associations were pulled from state available records and email addresses were developed by adding first name and last name together with district email address (e.g. "john.smith@fayette.kyschools.us"). Emails were submitted to an online email validation tool (neverbounce.com), and invalid emails were then manually reviewed.

EPP alumni information was provided by each EPP. The state provided EPPs with a list of initial certification alumni (only alumni who graduated with initial certification) and their associated schools. Additional demographic information provided on graduates included (1) program of study, (2) pathway [e.g., traditional, option-6, proficiency, residency, MAT, etc.], (3) and year of graduation. Graduates who had more than one program of study had programs of study merged together to capture the impact of both programs simultaneously. Each graduate with multiple initial certification areas was also assigned a program+ assignment to allow for a look at the impact of a program of study regardless of the degree combinations [e.g., "elementary education" and "elementary education + special education" are listed separately and there is a separate "elementary education+" category that allows for the combination of the two for comparisons.)

Since the focus is on the program/EPP, to reduce the survey burden on principals, where possible, graduate names were merged together to show principals a group of graduates instead of a single graduate. This merging was done based on (1) EPP, (2) year of graduation, (3) program of study, and (4) pathway. So, for example, if four students graduated from Bellarmine University from the same program, in the same year, and in the same pathway and all work at the same school, the principal would see their names grouped together and asked to think about the group collectively to rate the effectiveness of the preparation program by the EPP. Therefore, it is possible that 1 response from a Principal could represent 2 or more MSU graduates.

This project was completed by Joshua Rhodes McConnell Parsons, who at the time was an evaluation specialist at the Evaluation Center at the University of Kentucky in the College of Education. Mr. Parsons and the project were overseen by Dr. Shannon Sampson, Director of the Evaluation Center.

Morehead State University received 55 responses. These data represent the voices of those leaders and their overall impression of the impact that MSU-EPP graduates have on their K-12 students. Note that the standards represent both InTASC (CAEP) and Kentucky Teacher (EPSB).

These data summarize the impression that principals have of MSU graduates from the past 3 years only, 2019-22. (Data Table Follows)

N = 55 Ineffective Developing Accomplished Exemplary
1. Recognize all learners' strengths and interests when planning instruction. (InTASC/KTPS 1; Danielson Domain 1e) 2 4% 14 25% 34 62% 5 9%
2. Foster an inclusive learning environment that integrates culturally relevant content. (InTASC/KTPS 2; Danielson Domain 1b) 2 4% 8 15% 38 69% 7 13%
3. Create an environment that  supports individual and collaborative learning. (InTASC/KTPS 3; Danielson Domain 2a) 3 5% 11 20% 33 60% 8 15%
4.  Understand the central concepts and structures of the discipline taught. (InTASC/KTPS 4; Danielson Domain 1e) 2 4% 11 20% 36 65% 6 11%
5. Make connections between concepts and differing perspectives to engage learners.  (InTASC/KTPS 5; Danielson Domain 3c) 3 5% 13 24% 33 60% 6 11%
6. Use multiple methods of assessment to design instruction. (InTASC/KTPS 6; Danielson Domain 3d) 3 5% 16 29% 30 55% 6 11%
7. Plan instruction that supports every student in meeting learning goals.   (InTASC/KTPS 7; Danielson Domain 1e)   3 5% 19 35% 26 47% 7 13%
8. Use a variety of instructional strategies to help learners understand the content. (InTASC/KTPS 8; Danielson Domain 3c)  4 7% 15 27% 30 55% 6 11%
9. Model national and/or state technology standards to improve learning of all students. (InTASC/KTPS 8; Danielson Domain 3c) 2 4% 11 20% 35 64% 7 13%
10. Use multiple instructional modalities to positively impact student learning. (InTASC/KTPS 8; Danielson Domain 3e) 2 4% 12 22% 34 62% 7 13%
11. Evaluate the  effect of one’s actions on others. (InTASC/KTPS 9; Danielson Domain 4a)  2 4% 12 22% 35 64% 6 11%
12. Seek opportunities to collaborate with others to support student learning. (InTASC/KTPS 10; Danielson Domain 4e) 3 5% 10 18% 31 56% 11 20%

 

EVIDENCE 2

This survey was sent to 210 Cooperating Teachers that hosted a Student Teacher during the AY 2022-23. The Response (N) is 108, a 51% return rate.

View Data

Measure 2 (Initial and Advanced)

Satisfaction of employers and stakeholder involvement. (R4.2|R5.3| RA4.1). Data provided should be collected on employers' satisfaction with program completers.

EVIDENCE

During 21-22, data collection consisted of a series of interviews with instructional supervisors and principals in the Morehead State University Region. These 29 school districts provide employment opportunities for a large number of EPP graduates. The data from the interviews were collected to determine the strengths and weaknesses of first-year teachers who had graduated in the spring of 2021 and those who had completed their first year of teaching after graduating in the midst of the statewide shutdown in the Spring 2020 due to the impact of Covid 19.

Although instructional supervisors and principals felt that the skills of first-year teachers had been impacted by online learning and successive shutdowns in schools, as a result of Covid, 100% of the administrators (N=36) were quick to point out that experienced teachers suffered from some of the same problems. However, the consensus (83%) was that new teachers were overwhelmingly strong in technology and teaching in a hybrid situation.

The number one area of need identified for first-year teachers by 94% of interviewees was classroom management. For many completers, beginning their professional career, the lack of in-person field experience during the pandemic left them with opportunities to practice what they had learned and, thus, were not prepared to manage a classroom. Overwhelmingly, administrators explained that new teachers needed to be proactive within the classroom. Administrators expressed that often, new teachers did not understand how misbehavior could quickly escalate. Administrators also mentioned (67%) that new teachers needed a better grasp of how procedures could support their management skills.

Administrators who did not list this as the most important area of need listed it as a close second. Another area that overwhelmingly arose among administrators (91%) was the need for new teachers to understand and support students who may be dealing with anxiety, depression, and trauma. Many administrators saw this in connection with classroom management issues, but all (100%) expressed the belief that the pandemic had taken an emotional toll on students.

Finally, another area of need identified by Constituents (61%) was instructional strategies. New teachers needed to understand how instructional strategies should be integrated with a clear understanding of the standards to provide an engaging lesson. Additionally, 275 mentioned that lesson pacing needed improvement.

This table shows the history of the changes in the identified needs expressed by constituents over the last 7 years. Feedback comes from the last KY statewide principal survey, graduate feedback, focus groups, and interviews.

Findings Stakeholder Feedback  
Top Responses by all constituents*  
Areas for Candidate Preparation Improvement for EPP: Most cited responses  
   1   2   3  
KY STATEWIDE    (Fall 2015 & Spring 2016)  
Cooperating  
     Teachers Principals,    Interns    Resource Teachers   Student Teachers   
Add updated Content Knowledge 80%   InTASC 4   CAEP 1         Hands-on Training 60%   (Clinical Experiences)   InTASC  1-10   CAEP  2         Add/Update Content about Diverse Learners/IEP 40%   InTASC 1, 2   CAEP 1           
MSU    (Fall 2019-Spring 2020)   Cooperating        Teachers Principals,    Interns    Resource Teachers   Student Teachers   Add/Update Content Knowledge 100%   InTASC 4   CAEP 1      Hands-on Training 60%   (Clinical Experiences)   InTASC  1-10   CAEP  2            Add/Update Content about Diverse Learners/IEP  80%   InTASC  1, 2   CAEP  1           
MSU    (Fall 2020-Spring 2021)   Cooperating   Teachers and Principals,    Resource Teachers,   Student Teachers      Classroom Management   100%   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 3    Teaching with Technology   CAEP 1, 2 50%   In TASC 8      Mental Health Issues with Students (Trauma, depression)   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 1, 3, 7     
FOCUS GROUP     (2017-18; 2018-2019; 2019-2020)       Classroom Management and Societal Issues    InTASC 1-10   CAEP 1, 2, 3      Dispositional Issues   Soft skills   InTASC  9, 10   CAEP 4   Teaching Skills: Instructional Strategies and Content    (Math Instruction)   InTASC 7, 8   CAEP 1, 2  
FOCUS GROUP    2020-2021   Administrators in Region      Overarching Theme:    Teacher Recruitment   Classroom Management   100%   CAEP 1, 2   In TASC 3      Instructional Strategies and Content Knowledge   100%   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 4, 7   Mental Health Issues with Students (Trauma, depression, and Anxiety)   55%   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 1, 3, 7  
INTERVIEWS   2021-2022   Instructional Supervisors and Principals         Classroom Management   100%   CAEP 1, 2   In TASC 3      Mental Health Issues with Students (Trauma, depression, and Anxiety)   91%   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 1, 3, 7   Instructional Strategies Pacing   61%   CAEP 1, 2   InTASC 4, 7  

*Percentage is based on merged responses from surveys and meetings, not actual respondent percentages

MEASURE 3 (INITIAL AND ADVANCED)

Candidate competency at completion. (R3.3)

Data provided should relate to measures the EPP uses 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.) AND

MEASURE 4 (INITIAL AND ADVANCED)

Ability of completers to be hired (in positions for which they have prepared.)

EVIDENCE

In February 2023, the EPSB provided a report showing program completers between September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2022. It only captures data of completers that are currently assigned to a school. Those completers that are not assigned were not included in this data pull. This data set was then compared to our local lists of all completers during this same time frame, as provided by our I.R. department. Then, those completers not showing as ‘employed’ were located on the EPSB database, to determine if they a) hold a 5-year professional certificate (showing they meet licensing requirements) or b) have not yet applied for that 5-year certification (supposedly due to not meeting state certification requirements, e.g., Praxis scores). This table shows the results for Initial, MAT, and undergraduate programs.

Initial, Undergraduate-Traditional Route to Certification

Spring 2019 thru Fall 2022 UG Graduates Currently Employed Active 5-YR Professional Certification w/EPSB but not Job according to EPSB report %
Employed and/or Job Ready (Prof Cert)

No Application on file for a Prof Cert due to (Praxis Tests, Changed Career, etc.)
% Not Job Ready and/or No Longer in Teaching Career
5-9 & LBD 20 11 4 75% 5 25%
5-9 & MSD 3 1 1 67% 1 33%
5-9 Only 65 49 8 88% 8 12%
Ag Ed 18 8 7 83% 3 17%
Art Ed 16 9 5 88% 2 13%
CTE 3 1 1 67% 1 33%
English Ed 15 8 4 80% 3 20%
Health & PE 6 3 1 67% 2 33%
IECE 8 7 88% 1 13%
MSU Teach Biology 8 4 1 63% 3 38%
MSU Teach Chemistry 1 1 100% 0 0%
MSU Teach Math 11 10 91% 1 9%
MSU Teach Physics 1 1 100% 0 0%
Music Ed 64 21 4 39% 39 61%
P-5 & LBD 99 77 16 94% 6 6%
P-5 & MSD 32 18 13 97% 1 3%
P-5 Only 146 91 28 82% 27 18%
Social Studies
Ed
20 11 4 75% 5 25%
Spanish Ed 3 2 67% 1 33%
Theatre Ed 3 1 33% 2 67%
Business Ed 1 1 100% 0%
543 335 97 80% 111

Initial, MAT Option 6 and Traditional Routes to Certification

Spring 2019 thru
Fall 2022
MAT
Graduates
Currently Employed Active 5-YR Professional Certification w/EPSB but not Job according to EPSB report %
Employed and/or Job Ready (Prof Cert)
No Application on file for a Prof Cert due to (Praxis Tests, Changed Career, etc.) % Not Job Ready and/or No Longer in Teaching Career
5-9
English/Language
Arts Master of Arts
in Teaching
9 7 2 100% 0%
5-9 Mathematics Master of Arts in Teaching 11 9 2 100% 0%
5-9 Science Master of Arts in Teaching 16 15 1 100% 0%
5-9 Social Studies Master of Arts in Teaching 6 6 100% 0%
Business & Marketing Education Master of Arts in Teaching 6 5 83% 1 17%
Health Master of Arts in Teaching 3 3 100% 0%
Interdisc Early
Childhood Educ
Master of Arts in
Teaching
30 21 7 93% 2 7%
Secondary Biology Master of Arts in Teaching 8 6 1 88% 1 13%
Secondary Chemistry Master of Arts in Teaching 4 4 100% 0%
Secondary English Master of Arts in Teaching 13 6 5 85% 2 15%
Secondary Math Master of Arts in Teaching 10 9 1 100% 0%
Secondary Social Studies Master of Arts in Teaching 10 4 4 80% 2 20%
Spanish Master of Arts in Teaching 7 5 1 86% 1 14%
133 100 24 93% 9 7%

Contact Quality Assurance & Accreditation

Randy Barrette, director

801 Ginger Hall
Morehead, KY 40351

EMAIL: r.barrette@moreheadstate.edu
PHONE: 606-783-5483