CAEP Accountability Measures
Updated April 2023
MEASURE 1: COMPLETER EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT ON P-12 LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The State of NJ provides aggregate data to Drew regarding completer’s preparedness when they enter the classroom. Because Drew is a small program (i.e. total enrollment is less than 50 students per year) that encourages interdisciplinary collaboration across certification areas, we have a limited number of completers in each individual certification area. In almost every area, we do not reach the threshold of 10 completers for the state to provide data disaggregated by certification area. The state has provided the following data for the evaluation of Drew completers:
For the 2019-2020 school year, a large percentage of teachers statewide were not evaluated due to the public health emergency. Of the certified Drew program completers from the 2018-2019 school year employed in the 2019-2020 school year, only one was evaluated. Across a three-year aggregate that also includes program completers from the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years who were employed and evaluated one year after finishing at Drew, all (100%) earned an Effective rating as first year teachers. The NJDOE is not able to disaggregate this data because of regulations. For the 2020-2021 school year, most teachers were not rated due to the pandemic context. Therefore, no completer impact data is available for that year from NJDOE. NJDOE will provide updated data to Drew in September 2023 when data has been updated for the 2021-2022 school year.
Similarly, the state is not able to provide data for impact on student learning to Drew University, though it does provide an aggregate Student Growth Percentage and Student Growth Objective score in areas of certification where n >10 to all EPPs in the state. Because Drew is unable to assess the impact of completers using the state-provided data, we have utilized an annual system of case studies to learn about how our completers are doing in the classroom, school and district. Each year we invite program completers from the past two years to complete the following surveys: (1) satisfaction survey (2) employer satisfaction survey (3) student perception survey as well as provide impact and teaching effectiveness data. Participation in all surveys is voluntary.
RESULTS OF CASE ANALYSES
Participants in the case studies reported here included completers from school years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 and represented the following certification areas: Spanish, French, English, Biological Science, Chemistry, Art, Social Studies, Elementary Education, English as a Second Language, and Teaching Students with Disabilities. Analysis of all cases indicated that the completers had a positive impact on student learning with 100% of completers having earned effective or highly effective ratings using their school’s respective teacher evaluation framework and 100% meeting targets set by their school principals through student growth objectives. Additionally, student perceptions of their teachers were overwhelmingly positive with 94% of student survey participants expressing that their teacher presents information clearly, 100% expressing that their teacher frequently or almost always takes time to ensure they understand the material, 83% expressing that their teacher provides feedback that helps them learn, and 86% expressing that their teacher is good at teaching in the way that they learn best. Ninety-two percent of student survey participants also indicated that their teacher makes their course content interesting. These indicators suggest that students felt the teachers were effective and have had a positive impact on their learning.
Completers’ strengths included planning and lesson preparation, student engagement, use of digital tools and instructional technology, collaboration, identification of students’ needs, professionalism, cultivating an inclusive learning environment, classroom management, student rapport and communication, content knowledge, questioning strategies, reflecting on teaching practices, and commitment to professional development. Completers indicated that they felt extremely prepared for facilitating collaboration in the classroom; incorporating interdisciplinary materials and activities; providing specific, meaningful, and actionable feedback; reflecting on their practice, designing and implementing instruction, effective and engaging implementation of technology, posing questions, and facilitating discussions. One hundred percent of completers agreed that they felt prepared to design and implement lessons that are developmentally appropriate and conducive to the learning of all students and that demonstrate knowledge and command of the subject matter. Additionally, 100% felt prepared to interact with learners appropriately with sensitivity to developmental, cultural, linguistic and social differences and to cultivate an inclusive learning environment for all learners, incorporating multicultural content and perspectives into lessons and demonstrating warmth, care, and respect. All completers expressed feeling prepared to meet the needs of all learners, employ effective classroom management techniques, engage students, generate participation, support positive peer relationships, and exhibit personal and professional behaviors.
MEASURE 2: SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYERS AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Drew seeks feedback from employers and clinical partners as part of a continuous improvement process. An advisory board, composed of administrators from partner schools, alumni, and National Writing Project Teacher Consultants, meets both synchronously and asynchronously to provide insight from the field and to comment on Drew candidates and programs. Clinical faculty consist of practicing and retired teachers and administrators, and they are intimately involved in developing courses, syllabi, and assessments.
Clinical partners worked closely with Drew faculty to secure placements for interns. Drew partners with schools informally for placement of interns and through MOUs for collaboratively developed approaches to fieldwork and internships. Drew’s partnerships over the last three years (2020-2023) have included:
- Chester Consolidated School District
- Madison Public Schools
- Morris School District
- Newark YMCA
- Orange School District
- Red Oaks School
- Somerset Hills
- West Morris Regional High School District
- West Orange Public Schools
- Bridgewater Raritan Regional School District
- School District of the Chathams
- Morris Hills Regional District
- Glen Rock Public Schools
- St. Paul’s Day School & Kindergarten
- Mendham Borough School District
Advisory board members and other field based personnel participate in mock interviews in March/April. Feedback from those administrators indicates that Drew candidates will make excellent employees. At least 10% of candidates are hired by districts that interviewed them during the mock interview sessions.
Employers across seven New Jersey school districts provided insight regarding their satisfaction with program completers certified in Spanish, French, English, Biological Science, Chemistry, Art, Social Studies, English as a Second Language, and Teaching Students with Disabilities. These employers consisted of principals, supervisors, and department chairs. Of the employers that provided feedback, 100% indicated that they anticipated that the completers would remain at their schools or districts based on their satisfaction with them, and 71% noted that the completers had leadership or supervisory potential or that they were already taking on leadership roles within their school districts. Employers indicated completers’ areas of strength as knowledge of best practices and instructional strategies, instructional design and assessment, real world integration into the curriculum, student engagement, and educational technology and hybrid learning. Additionally, 100% of the employers suggested that the completers understand how learners grow and develop, how to cultivate inclusive learning environments that enable students to meet high standards, how to work collaboratively with stakeholders to support student learning and success and advance the profession, how to create learning experiences that assure mastery of content, and how to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues. All employers also noted that completers understand and use various instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content and build skills to apply knowledge meaningfully as well as multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, monitor learner progress, and guide decision making. In addition to the completers’ collaborations with professional learning communities, all employers expressed satisfaction with teachers’ engagement in ongoing individual professional development to continue improving their practice. Overall, 100% of employers expressed satisfaction with completers.
MEASURE 3: CANDIDATE COMPETENCY AT PROGRAM COMPLETION
100% of Drew’s completers met NJ required scores for the Praxis Core (or equivalent), Praxis II, and edTPA assessments.
|Area||n||Cut Score||Three Year Mean|
|Science & Math||5||37||41.0|
edTPA Mean Scores 2020-2022
100% of Drew’s candidates enrolled in Clinical Practice II earned above a 3.0 (proficient) average on the Clinical Competency Inventory, a valid and reliable instrument created by the New Jersey Teacher Assessment Consortium.
|CCI Item||Elementary (n=17) Mean||Secondary (n = 23) Mean||Overall (n = 40) Mean|
|1.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs and implements lessons that are developmentally appropriate so that all learners can learn.||3.78||3.88||3.83|
|1.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern interacts with learners in an appropriate manner with sensitivity to developmental, cultural, linguistic and social differences.||3.94||3.79||3.86|
|2.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs and implements instruction to ensure an inclusive learning environment for all learners.||3.78||3.79||3.79|
|2.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern incorporates multicultural content and perspectives into the lesson.||3.61||3.57||3.59|
|2.3 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs and/or implements strategies to support learners whose first language is not English.||3.44||3.5||3.47|
|3.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern demonstrates general warmth, caring and respect towards learners through verbal/nonverbal communication.||4||3.88||3.93|
|3.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern uses effective classroom management techniques.||3.61||3.63||3.62|
|3.3 Learners are actively participating and engaged in the lesson.||3.83||3.83||3.83|
|3.4 Learners are engaged in positive peer relationships through classroom activities.||3.78||3.67||3.71|
|4.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs and implements lessons that demonstrate knowledge and command of the subject matter.||3.78||3.92||3.86|
|4.2 Learners demonstrate development of critical thinking and problem solving within the content area.||3.56||3.79||3.69|
|4.3 The teaching candidate/clinical intern integrates reading, writing, speaking and listening.||3.78||3.88||3.83|
|5.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern implements learning experiences that allow learners to integrate knowledge from several content areas.||3.72||3.67||3.69|
|5.2 Learners apply content knowledge to solve real world problems through collaboration.||3.67||3.58||3.62|
|5.3 Learners use current resources for content exploration, which may include technological applications.||3.78||3.83||3.81|
|5.4 Learners apply their content knowledge through a variety of forms such as oral, written, and/or technological presentations.||3.78||3.83||3.81|
|5.5 Learners are engaged in literacy activities within content areas.||3.78||3.79||3.79|
|5.6 Learners are engaged in activities that promote and value the development of quantitative reasoning within content areas.||3.61||3.5||3.55|
|6.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs appropriate formative and summative assessments that are aligned with learning objectives.||3.56||3.67||3.62|
|6.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern uses assessment and provides meaningful and specific feedback to learners.||3.72||3.79||3.76|
|7.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern selects a variety of appropriate instructional materials and resources to meet the needs of all learners.||3.72||3.88||3.81|
|7.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern integrates technology into the lesson plan to promote effective learning for all learners, when available.||3.78||3.88||3.83|
|7.3 The teaching candidate/clinical intern designs and implements effective lessons that follow a carefully sequenced development of rigorous learning goals.||3.83||3.75||3.79|
|7.4 The teaching candidate’s/clinical intern’s unit has lessons that build on each other to support learning of the essential strategy with clear connections to skills and learning theory.||3.72||3.79||3.76|
|8.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern uses effective questions to facilitate deep understanding of content (i.e., higher order thinking).||3.61||3.79||3.71|
|8.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern varies his/her role in the instructional process in relation to the content (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, participant).||3.83||3.79||3.81|
|8.3 The teaching candidate/clinical intern models metacognitive processes to support comprehension of content (think alouds, questioning).||3.56||3.71||3.64|
|8.4 The teaching candidate/clinical intern/learners use(s) instructional time effectively to achieve learning outcomes.||3.67||3.63||3.64|
|9.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern provides evidence of reflection on improvement of professional practice in content area(s) and pedagogy.||3.67||3.83||3.76|
|9.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern provides evidence of maintaining and analyzing accurate student records.||3.5||3.63||3.57|
|10.1 The teaching candidate/clinical intern provides evidence of contributing to school and/or district by voluntarily offering assistance, and participating in school district events, projects, extra-curricular activities.||3.56||3.67||3.62|
|11.1 Fosters and maintains a classroom environment which protects students from sexually, physically, verbally, or emotionally harassing behavior by acting in a sound and professionally responsible manner.||3.89||3.88||3.88|
|11.2 The teaching candidate/clinical intern exhibits appropriate personal and professional behaviors (e.g. appropriate dress, language and interaction with school personnel, peers and learners).||3.94||3.92||3.93|
|11.3 The teaching candidate/clinical intern demonstrates effective reading, writing, speaking, mathematics, and technology skills required of a professional.||3.72||3.83||3.79|
CCI Final Mean Scores from 2020-2022
MEASURE 4: ABILITY OF COMPLETERS TO BE HIRED IN EDUCATION POSITIONS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE PREPARED
100% of 19-20 candidates completed the program, and 95% of them were hired in teaching positions for the 20-21 school year. The other 5% remained in graduate school to complete an add-on certificate. Amongst school year 2020-2021 candidates, 22 completed their program of study and 100% were hired in teaching positions. In 2021-2022 all 15 candidates completed the program, and 100% were hired in teaching positions for the 2022-2023 school year.
Educator Preparation Provider Annual Reports
EPP Annual Reports include impact, teaching effectiveness, employment, and certification assessment outcomes and are provided by the NJ Department of Education between April and July the year following the year of the report (e.g., 2019 Report was available in late spring 2020). The most recent year’s report will be available on the state website (https://eppdata.doe.state.nj.us/) and here when released by the state. The data provided above will be available in the 2020 report.
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2021
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2020
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2019
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2018
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2017
- Educator Preparation Provider Performance Report 2016
- Educator Preparation Provider Annual Report 2015
- Educator Preparation Provider Annual Report 2014