Accreditation and Program/Student Outcomes

SRU is completing its "Self-Study" in preparation for our March 27-29, 2022 CAEP accreditation site visit. In order to solicit third-party comments about the College of Education, we are inviting any interested parties to submit their comments to collegeofed.ga@sru.edu

Teacher Education programs at Slippery Rock University are fully accredited by the State of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Being an accredited institution recognizes SRU as an educational institution that meets or exceeds state standards. This accreditation involves a regular process of alignment with state teacher education program standards and compliance with all aspects of appropriate Pennsylvania state law and code. Our continuing accreditation, a result of our most recent review during the Spring 2015 semester, attests to the commitment and quality of the SRU teacher preparation program.

In addition to state accreditation, Teacher Education programs at Slippery Rock University are nationally accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE establishes high and rigorous standards for preparation programs, holds accredited institutions accountable for meeting these standards, and requires institutions to demonstrate that teacher candidates know their subject matter and how to teach it effectively to all students.

In addition, as part of the national accreditation process, SRU teacher education programs are nationally recognized by professional content associations for meeting rigorous national standards in content area studies. SRU is nationally recognized in the following areas by these specialty professional associations:

Early Childhood Education by the National Association for the Education of Young Children
- Initial P-4 Program
Special Education by the Council for Exceptional Children
- Both Initial and Advanced Programs in P-12 Special Education
English Education by the National Council of Teachers of English
- Both Initial and Advanced 7-12 English and Initial Middle Level English Programs
Mathematics Education by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
- Both Initial and Advanced 7-12 Math and Initial Middle Level Math Programs
Science Education by the National Science Teachers Association
- Both Initial and Advanced 7-12 Science and Initial Middle Level Science Programs
Social Studies by the National Council for the Social Studies
- Both Initial and Advanced 7-12 Social Studies and Initial Middle Level Social Studies Programs

View the most recent passing certification exam rates:

The Teacher Preparation Program Report (Title II report) can be accessed through the U.S. Department of Education's Title II website or is available by the College of Education upon request.

FACULTY AND ALUMNI SPOTLIGHTS

The College of Education publishes spotlights which highlight the accomplishments of alumni and faculty.

To view alumni spotlights, click here.
To view faculty spotlights, click here.

CAEP 8 Annual Reporting Measures

1. Impact on P-12 Student Learning & Development

The impact measurement of how our program completers contribute to expected level of student-learning growth comes from data collected in partnership with an urban PA cooperating Public School District. This data was collected by that Public-School District (as directed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education) and shared with us. The student learning and growth data was defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Education using PVASS, a validated and "reliable" value-added measure that gauges the extent to which students gained or lost ground compared to their peers when holding constant students' prior assessment results.

Teachers were also rated by this Public-school’s supervisors (principals) using a Danielson-based observation rubric. SRU scored higher than "All Hires" in managing student behavior and engaging students in learning. SRU scored "About the Same" as all hires in all other areas. SRU was "Proficient" or higher with average scores of 200 or better in every area.

As for "Overall Performance," teachers received an annual rating based on combining the above measures collected by the School District. The combined effectiveness measure (CEM) is a score between 0-300, with each score translating to an overall level of performance in the following way: Distinguished (210-300), Proficient (150-209), Needs Improvement (140-149), and Failing (0-139). SRU's CEM scores for 2018 was 212. Therefore, we see, from this Public School's perspective, that SRU hires are "Distinguished" in their performance as measured by PVASS and principal classroom evaluations.

Another measure of our graduates' impact on their students learning is a sampling of our graduates' performance on their Pennsylvania Act 82 Teacher Evaluations. All teachers employed in PA undergo annual classroom observations that are related to student achievement that comprise fifty percent (50%) of their overall rating in each of the following Danielson areas: Planning and Preparation; Classroom environment; Instruction; Professional responsibilities. Student performance, which comprises the other fifty percent (50%) of the overall rating is based on multiple measures of student achievement, otherwise known as the Student Learning Outcome (SLO) assessment. We contacted recent graduates of our programs to obtain their SLO's.

Those responding first to our query were four (4) recent graduates, a secondary (9th grade) English teacher, Kindergarten teacher, first-grade reading teacher, and P-8 Special Education teacher. Their SLO reports showed that they improved their students' performance on the vast-majority of their students' pre-test, post-test criteria (showing improvement after having taught Pennsylvania Department of Education Standard-based content). Results of two (2) examples are shown in the AIMS Artifacts area. One SLO shows that all students demonstrated growth during an after-school reading intervention program as measured by such assessments as the Flynt-Cooter/Fluency and Comprehension tool. The other shows that 21 of 24 9th grade English students demonstrated growth concerning comprehension of "cold-reading" of literary nonfiction as measured within the SLO project. Again, these results appear to support the fact that our graduates have a positive impact on their students' learning when entering the teaching profession.

Our case study approach also produced data showing our completers’ positive impact on P-12 learning and development (please see Measure #2 for more details).

Finally, our employer survey provides strong evidence that our teaching graduates are educating effectively. Ninety-two percent of the responses from the school leaders who completed the survey stated that our graduates almost always or often met the InTASC standards identified in the survey. There were 25 school leaders who responded to the 24 questions related to the InTASC standards.

The survey was distributed in 3 cycles to 3 different groups of school leaders throughout the spring '21 semester.

Survey completers were asked to please rate the degree to which the teachers in their district who were prepared by Slippery Rock University met the descriptors in the survey questions. These descriptors could refer to the frequency (almost never to almost always) in which each teacher met that descriptor or the number (none to most) of teachers who meet that descriptor. Response options were:

1 - Almost Never or None
2 - Rarely or Few
3 - Sometimes or About Half
4 - Often or Many
5 - Almost Always or Most

In an effort to elicit the best results and the highest return rate, individual emails were sent to 32 superintendents and the email included a list of Slippery Rock University prepared teachers who were identified as being employed in the school district. Superintendents were asked to complete the survey themselves or forward to another school leader who they deemed best to complete the survey. The request was to complete the survey in general, using the list of recent (within 5 years) graduates as a frame of reference. It was known that school leaders would be prohibited from responding specifically about any one of their employees.

For example, one question was, "The Slippery Rock University prepared teachers in my district collaborate with others to build a positive learning climate marked by respect, rigor, and responsibility."

An examination of the average responses shows a very positive impression of Slippery Rock University graduates by local school districts. For example, 4.3 was the average rating concerning, "Slippery Rock University prepared teachers in my district selected, created, and sequenced learning experiences and performance tasks that support learners in reaching rigorous curriculum goals based on content standards and cross-disciplinary skills.” School districts also identified our graduates as being relatively strong (>4.7) in the area of practicing the profession in an ethical manner and in meeting employment milestones.

2. Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness

Because Pennsylvania does not provide EPPs with data such as value-added measures or student-growth percentiles, Slippery Rock University chose to conduct case studies of their graduates to establish on measure of our completers’ impact on their students learning. To do so, we continued to foster a relationship with our program completers in their induction into the profession. We designed a coaching-style Case Study to both observe and promote best practices for recent completers.

The following summarizes our case study design, data and analysis, and conclusions.
Methods

Faculty Observers and Teacher Participants

The case study design was agreed upon by the CAEP Committee, which comprises of representatives from each initial licensure program. Committee representatives shared the design with the entire College of Education faculty at an all-college meeting. Faculty were invited to volunteer to as observers. Recent completers (i.e., within 5 years) were invited individually by the faculty observers in each program. A summary of participants and the aggregated data is shown for Data Cycle 1 & 2 is shown in this table.

Rubric Development & Data Sources

The state pf Pennsylvania and SRU's teaching programs use the Danielson Framework to evaluate all Stage III field students and student teachers. This framework is also used by the state of Pennsylvania. Therefore, this rubric (validated and shown reliable) was also used for the Completer Case Study. The accreditation team decided to include 13 of the 22 rubric indicators, eliminating from data collection indicators that were less relevant to our central focus of completers' impact on student learning. Streamlining the rubric made the process more focused for observers and allowed for observers to offer a goal-focused coaching cycle to our novice completers. That rubric is also linked below.

Danielson Framework for Teaching

For ease and consistency in data collection, observers used a pre-teaching discussion guide, an observation guide, and a post-teaching discussion guide. These guides prompted observers and teachers to include previous evaluation data and evidence of student learning in addition to the data collected via observation.

Data Collection

Each faculty observer conducted three processes with the completer participants: a pre-teaching conference, a synchronous observation, and a post-teaching conference.

During the pre-teaching conference, the observer and participant reviewed existing data that demonstrated the teacher's effectiveness and discussed the teacher's strengths and areas for growth. In keeping with the coaching cycle design, the observer and participant also worked together to establish a focus for the observation so the faculty member could specifically support each participant in an area of practice targeted for growth.

The observation of teaching was aligned with the participant's goals. For example, if a teacher wished to critically examine her questioning strategy, the observer would collect data about the type and frequency of questions observed during the lesson. Additionally, the observer rated the teacher according to the adapted rubric of 13 indicators from the Danielson Framework.

Following the observation, the observer and teacher discussed the lesson and outcomes. A discussion guide prompted each dyad to discuss evidence of student learning, reflections on challenges and how these might inform future plans, and ideas and resources for moving forward. Additional questions asked participants to share their thoughts about how SRU prepared them to be a teacher. The guide also included prompts for the observer to share ideas and resources for moving forward. Observers were encouraged to focus the post-observation discussion on the participants' own goals for their instruction, to recognize the teachers' professionalism and support their autonomy in directing their professional growth.

Scoring and Analysis

Each observer scored the teacher participant on the 13 rubric indicators, on a scale of 1-3. The observation guide also prompted observers to note the evidence supporting their rating. Observation notes regarding each teacher's individual goal were also captured on the observation guide, though these practices were not scored. Additionally, observers took notes according to the discussion guides for the pre- and post-teaching observations.

The documents from each case were compiled by the accreditation committee, who summarized the quantitative findings (i.e., rubric scores) and qualitative findings (i.e., evidence notes and question responses) across the cases. The faculty observers were then invited to participate in the cross-case analysis by looking for themes and patterns in the data as well as convergence and divergence of the qualitative and quantitative findings. Analyses were then presented to the Unit accreditation committee for discussion about connections with other data sources ---- e.g., student teaching evaluations, Student Learning Outcomes projects, and completer and employer satisfaction survey--- all in the service of looking for implications for program improvement.

Findings

This table shows disaggregated data by program and summarizes the quantitative findings (I.e., the mean scores of all teacher participants on each rubric indicator). Findings indicate that teachers scored high on most rubric indicators. Scores in areas in domain 1 - demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy, knowledge of students, and setting instructional outcomes - were slightly lower (m=2.66) than domains 2, 3, and 4. One notable exception is indicator 3b, using questioning and discussion techniques, with a mean score of 2.70.

3. Satisfaction of Employers

Three cycles of surveys were distributed to school leaders who regularly hire SRU graduates for teaching positions. School leaders were asked to respond the survey questions based on the typical SRU completer. The survey and a summary of their responses follow.

4. Satisfaction of Completers

Three cycles of surveys were distributed to completers. Surveys were sent to completers one-year and three-years after completion of a program. The survey and a summary of their responses follow.

5. Graduation Rates

The following links provide information on the graduation rates of our teacher candidates:

6. Licensure/Certification Rates & Title II

The Teacher Preparation Program Report (Title II report) can be accessed through the U.S. Department of Education's Title II website or is available by the College of Education upon request.

Certification Exam Pass Rates:

7. Employment Rates

The following links provide data on the ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have been prepared:

Welcome to the Slippery Rock University Website

Accessibility Navigation:

College of Education

Accreditation and Program/Student Outcomes

FACULTY AND ALUMNI SPOTLIGHTS

CAEP 8 Annual Reporting Measures

College of Education

Contact Information