2022-2023 CAEP Measures



CAEP Accountability Measures 

As part of our national accreditation process, we are required to report 4 measures of program effectiveness publicly. We are proud of our success and we invite you to compare these data with other accredited programs.



Measure 1: Completer Impact and Effectiveness

Completer Impact on P-12 Learning and Development

Based on a sample of School of Education graduates, teachers in their first or second year of teaching completed a unit of instruction and used a matched pre- assessment and post-assessment to measure the percentage learning gain of their students.

Graduation Year

2017

11 teachers

2018

6 teachers

2019

1 teacher

2020

7 teachers

2021

2 teachers

2022

3 teachers

2023

2 teachers

P-12 student count

187

95

21

233

46

67

38

P-12 student
average gain

25.08

35.04

32.34

43.84

31.75

29.53

41.73

 
Completer Effectiveness in Applying Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions 

As part of a case study methodology, School of Education faculty visit early career teacher classrooms and do an abbreviated observation similar to the observation completed during student teaching. In this case data are recorded and analyzed qualitatively. To view the format of the observation and accumulated qualitative data click on the link below. 

Early Career Teacher Classroom Observation



Measure 2: Satisfaction of Employers and Stakeholder Involvement

An educational research firm was hired by a consortium of Schools of Education to develop and administer a survey of employer satisfaction with newly hired teachers from Schools of Education in the State of Oregon. These surveys are conducted every two years with the employers of the alumni from the previous two years of graduating completers. Although numbers have been improving, the response rates may indicate that responses are not representative of all employers who have selected University of Portland graduates as new teachers. The survey instrument was designed to address Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) performance categories. In the table below the numbers represent the percentage of responses within each response category. 

InTASC Category


Completely Unprepared

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Very well
prepared

Learner and learning

 

 

 

 

 

4.2

8.3

17.1

31.7

2.4

Content
knowledge

 

 

 

16.7

 

 

 5.6

 

5.6

72.2

Instructional practice

 

4.5

 

4.5

 

9.1

 

13.6

63.6

4.5

Professional
responsibilities

 

2.4

 

 

 

2.4

7.3

22.0

63.4

2.4


In terms of advanced program candidates, 100% met CAEP Measure 2 by continuing employment as rated by their supervisors. In addition, we conducted interviews with both completers and employers of advanced programs as an additional data point; the interview protocol that is being used for these interviews is available here. These interviews discovered satisfaction of both completers and employers in terms of capacity; see results here.

In addition, internal and external stakeholders participate in program design, evaluation, and continuous improvement processes for both initial licensure and advanced programs through our Unit Advisory Consortium (UAC). These meetings are held twice per year; a typical meeting agenda involves analyzing data, co-constructing revisions to assessments, feedback sessions, and conducting focus groups with completers.



Measure 3: Candidate Competency at Program Completion

We administer a survey of new teachers satisfaction with the preparation they received from Schools of Education at exit of the program. The survey instrument was designed to address Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) performance categories. In the table below the numbers represent the percentage of responses within each response category. 

InTASC Category

Completely Unprepared

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Very well prepared

Learner and learning

 

 

 

0.9

2.2

6.3

8.8

21.7

31.1

28.9

Content
knowledge

 

 

0.4

 0.7

1.1

1.5

12.2

22.6

28.1

33.3

Instructional practice

 

 

 

 

0.3

1.5

8.3

21.6

27.5

40.7

Professional
responsibilities

 

 

0.7

0.3

0.8

1.3

4.9

15.3

25.7

50.9

 
For advanced administrator programs, candidates rate their competency, in terms of how much better their competency was at program completion using a survey aligned to the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards. In the table below the numbers represent the percentage of responses within each response category.

NELP Standard

Completely Unprepared

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Very well prepared

Mission, Vision, & Improvement

 

 

 

 

 

16.7

33.3

50.0

 

Ethics and Professional Norms

 

 

 

 

 

 

16.7

33.3

50.0

Equity, Inclusiveness, & Cultural Responsiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

66.7

22.2

11.1

Learning & Instruction

 

 

 

 

16.7

41.7

41.7

 

Community & External Leadership

 

 

 

 

 

22.2

66.7

11.1

 

Operations & Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

44.4

55.6

 

Building Professional Capacity

 

 

 

 

33.3

66.7

 

 



Measure 4: Ability of Completers to be Hired in Education Positions for Which They Have Been Prepared

The majority of out-of-state teaching positions for our graduates are in Washington State, but our graduates teach in schools all over the world, which has made tracking of graduates out of state exciting but difficult—hence the range of unknown graduates. The table below shows the percentage of graduates within each employment category for each of the most recent graduating cohorts. Advanced candidates are employed when in the program.

Year

Cohort size (n)

 

  Teaching_

 

Higher
education

Non-education

/ unemployed

Unknown

In state

Out of state

Total teaching

2019

77

59.0

31.1

90.2

3.3

1.6

4.9

2020

69

49.3

31.9

81.2

8.7

5.8

4.3

2021

70

47.1

44.3

91.4

2.9

2.9

2.8

2022

51

65.7

23.5

88.2

2.0

2.0

7.8

2023

80

38.8

45.0

83.8

5.0

2.5

8.8