Accreditation is a process of external peer review in which institutions of higher learning are evaluated based on a comprehensive set of established standards and criteria. Accreditation is maintained through various state and national professional accrediting bodies. The process of program accreditation provides a means of continuous quality assurance and represents the ongoing dedication of Orlean Beeson School of Education to provide effective, high-quality professional programs that meet the needs our communities.

caep photo accreditation

Samford University’s Orlean Beeson School of Education is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). CAEP, the only recognized national accreditor for educator preparation, promotes excellence through quality assurance and continuous improvement. Orlean Beeson School of Education meets rigorous national standards for educator preparation set by CAEP and has earned national accreditation by demonstrating excellence in the areas of content and pedagogy, clinical experiences, selectivity, program impact, and capacity for continuous improvement. Orlean Beeson School of Education is CAEP accredited through spring 2027.

Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Initial Standard 1: The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility.

Provider Responsibilities

1.2 Providers ensure that candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their own professional practice.

1.3 Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).

1.4 Providers ensure that candidates demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college- and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).

1.5 Providers ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice.

Advanced Standard 1: The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their field of preparation and, by completion, are able to use professional specialty practices flexibly to advance the learning of all P-12 students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Initial Standard 2: The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development.

Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements, including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships for clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes.

Clinical Educators

2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators, both provider- and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates’ development and P-12 student learning and development. In collaboration with their partners, providers use multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based applications to establish, maintain, and refine criteria for selection, professional development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical educators in all clinical placement settings.

Clinical Experiences

2.3 The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students’ learning and development. Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students

Advanced Standard 2: The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field.

Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment and Selectivity

Initial Standard 3: The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification. The provider demonstrates that development of candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program. This process is ultimately determined by a program’s meeting of Standard 4.

Plan for Recruitment of Diverse Candidates who Meet Employment Needs

3.1 The provider presents plans and goals to recruit and support completion of high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields, currently, STEM, English-language learning, and students with disabilities.

Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement

3.2 The provider meets CAEP minimum criteria or the state’s minimum criteria for academic achievement, whichever are higher, and gathers disaggregated data on the enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year.

The CAEP minimum criteria are a grade point average of 3.0 and a group average performance on nationally normed assessments or substantially equivalent state-normed assessments of mathematical, reading and writing achievement in the top 50 percent of those assessed. An EPP may develop and use a valid and reliable substantially equivalent alternative assessment of academic achievement. The 50th percentile standard for writing will be implemented in 2021.

Starting in academic year 2016-2017, the CAEP minimum criteria apply to the group average of enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year. The provider determines whether the CAEP minimum criteria will be measured (1) at admissions, OR (2) at some other time prior to candidate completion.

In all cases, EPPs must demonstrate academic quality for the group average of each year’s enrolled candidates. In addition, EPPs must continuously monitor disaggregated evidence of academic quality for each branch campus (if any), mode of delivery, and individual preparation programs, identifying differences, trends and patterns that should be addressed under component 3.1, Plan for recruitment of diverse candidates who meet employment needs.

CAEP will work with states and providers to designate, and will periodically publish, appropriate “top 50 percent” proficiency scores on a range of nationally or state normed assessments and other substantially equivalent academic achievement measures, with advice from an expert panel.

Alternative arrangements for meeting the purposes of this component will be approved only under special circumstances and in collaboration with one or more states. The CAEP President will report to the Board and the public annually on actions taken under this provision.

Additional Selectivity Factors

3.3 Educator preparation providers establish and monitor attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability that candidates must demonstrate at admissions and during the program. The provider selects criteria, describes the measures used and evidence of the reliability and validity of those measures, and reports data that show how the academic and non-academic factors predict candidate performance in the program and effective teaching.

Selectivity During Preparation

3.4 The provider creates criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion. All candidates demonstrate the ability to teach to college- and career-ready standards. Providers present multiple forms of evidence to indicate candidates’ developing content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and the integration of technology in all of these domains.

Selection At Completion

3.5 Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate has reached a high standard for content knowledge in the fields where certification is sought and can teach effectively with positive impacts on P-12 student learning and development.

3.6 Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate understands the expectations of the profession, including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policies. CAEP monitors the development of measures that assess candidates’ success and revises standards in light of new results.

Advanced Standard 3: The provider demonstrates that the quality of advanced program candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility so that completers are prepared to perform effectively and can be recommended for certification where applicable.

Standard 4: Program Impact

Initial Standard 4: The provider demonstrates the 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. Impact on P-12 Student Learning and Development: The provider documents, using multiple measures that program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth. Multiple measures shall include all available growth measures (including value-added measures, student-growth percentiles, and student learning and development objectives) required by the state for its teachers and available to educator preparation providers, other state-supported P-12 impact measures, and any other measures employed by the provider

Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness

4.2 The provider demonstrates, through structured validated observation instruments and/or student surveys, that completers effectively apply the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions that the preparation experiences were designed to achieve.

Satisfaction of Employers

4.3 The provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data and including employment milestones such as promotion and retention, that employers are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their assigned responsibilities in working with P-12 students.

Satisfaction of Completers

4.4 The provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data, that program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job, and that the preparation was effective.

Advanced Standard 4: The provider documents the satisfaction of its completers from advanced preparation programs and their employers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Standard 5: Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

Standard 5: The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates’ and completers’ positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers’ impact on P-12 student learning and development.

Quality and Strategic Evaluation

5.1 The provider’s quality assurance system is comprised of multiple measures that can monitor candidate progress, completer achievements, and provider operational effectiveness. Evidence demonstrates that the provider satisfies all CAEP standards.

5.2 The provider’s quality assurance system relies on relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable measures, and produces empirical evidence that interpretations of data are valid and consistent.

Continuous Improvement

5.3 The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.

5.4. Measures of completer impact, including available outcome data on P-12 student growth, are summarized, externally benchmarked, analyzed, shared widely, and acted upon in decision-making related to programs, resource allocation, and future direction.

5.5. The provider assures that appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, school and community partners, and others defined by the provider, are involved in program evaluation, improvement, and identification of models of excellence.

CAEP Annual Reporting Measures

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) has eight annual reporting measures which are used to provide information to the public on both program outcome and program impact. The following is the list of the CAEP measures.

Measures of Program Impact

Measure 1: Student Learning

Alabama Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) members developed a survey to be administered electronically to the employers of first-year teachers who completed an Alabama State Board of Education-approved undergraduate (Class B) or alternative master's degree (Class A) program during the 2018-2019 school year, leading to their first or initial Professional Educator Certificate. Data provided below identifies the percentage of employers who rated their first-year teachers as Teacher Leader, Effective Teacher, Emerging Teacher, or Ineffective Teacher. The graph below shows beginning teachers who graduated from Samford compared to all beginning teachers across the state. Questions from the survey were identified to demonstrate completers’ impact on student learning. Samford completers outperformed the state scoring “teacher leader” or “effective teacher” with regard to selecting, creating and sequencing learning experiences and performance tasks that support learners in reaching rigorous curriculum goals based on content standards and cross disciplinary skills.

  • Student Learning—assessment on pre- and post-instruction on P-12 student learning.

Measure 2: Teacher Effectiveness

In the survey produced by the AACTE, employers were asked to rate their first-year teachers as Teacher Leader, Effective Teacher, Emerging Teacher, or Ineffective Teacher. The graph below shows beginning teachers who graduated from Samford compared to all beginning teachers across the state. Samford completers outperformed the state with regard to understanding and using a variety of instructional strategies and make learning accessible to all learners.

Teacher Effectiveness Chart

Chart Data

Teacher Effectiveness
Group State Samford
Teacher Leader 11% 11%
Effective Leader 61% 78%
Emerging Teacher 26% 11%
Ineffective Teacher 2% 0%

Measure 3: Employer Perceptions

This First-Year Teacher Survey was developed by the AACTE and employers of first-year teachers were asked to rate first-year teachers as Teacher Leader, Effective Teacher, Emerging Teacher or Ineffective Teacher. Reliability and validity coefficients are proprietary with AACTE. Data obtained from this survey was utilized as part the EPP’s Continuous Improvement Process to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement.

Learner Development

Upon review of the employer survey, EPP completers were ranked a little lower than the statewide average in the learner development category. However, EPP completers far exceeded the Statewide average in the effective category compared to the state. In learning differences and managing the learning environment, EPP completers performed well above the statewide average. A sample of the findings is below.

Learner Development Chart

Chart Data

Learner Development
Group State Samford
Teacher Leader 9% 13%
Effective Leader 41% 47%
Emerging Teacher 46% 40%
Ineffective Teacher 4% 0%

Content Knowledge

On the employer survey, completers scored well above the statewide average in content knowledge and application of content. All the scores in content knowledge and application of content fell at or above the statewide average in the employer survey. A sample of the findings is below.

Content Knowledge Chart

Chart Data

Content Knowledge
Group State Samford
Teacher Leader 9% 13%
Effective Leader 45% 47%
Emerging Teacher 43% 40%
Ineffective Teacher 3% 0%

Instructional Practice

Results for the first-year teacher employer survey indicate that completers scored above the statewide average in every area of assessment, planning for instruction, and instructional strategies. Completers scored highest in implementing assessments in an ethical manner and minimize bias to enable learners to display the full extent of their learning and the ability to plan instruction based on information from formative and summative assessments. Another area of strength was the ability to plan instruction by collaborating with colleagues, specialists, community resources, families, and learners to meet individual learning. Areas of relative weakness were possessing knowledge of Alabama’s state assessment system and uses assessment to engage learners in their own growth. A sample of the findings is below.

Instructional Practice Chart

Chart Data

Instructional Practice
Group State Samford
Teacher Leader 10% 13%
Effective Leader 33% 47%
Emerging Teacher 53% 40%
Ineffective Teacher 4% 0%

Professionalism

Overall, on the employer survey, completers were scored above the statewide average when comparing EPP completers with the statewide scores. Areas of significant strength were noted in practice the profession in an ethical manner and collaborate with others to build a positive learning climate marked by respect, rigor. Employers noted that EPP completers were lower in the area of understands the expectations of the profession including the Alabama Educator Code of Ethics, the NASDTEC Model of Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE), professional standards of practice, and relevant law and policy and seek appropriate leadership roles. Overall, EPP completers performed at or above the statewide average in professional learning and ethical practice and in leadership and collaboration. A sample of the findings is below.

Professionalism Chart

Chart Data

Professionalism Practice
Group State Samford
Teacher Leader 18% 27%
Effective Leader 66% 40%
Emerging Teacher 14% 33%
Ineffective Teacher 12% 0%
  • Principal survey (Initial/ Advanced)—a survey of principals' perception of graduates' preparation by the university 12-18 months after completion of program.

Measure 4: Completer Perceptions

This First-Year Teacher Survey was developed by the AACTE during the 2016-17 school year and was administered electronically to first-year teachers who had completed an Alabama State Board of Education-approved undergraduate (Class B) or alternative master’s degree (Class A) program leading to their first or initial Professional Educator Certificate. Responses from First-Year teachers include a summary of survey categories and the percentage of first-year teachers who Strongly Agreed, Agreed, Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed that their program prepared them to teach successfully.

Learner Development

According to the teacher and employer First-Year Teacher survey, completers were at or above the state average in their understanding of learner development and learning differences. Upon review of the completer surveys for the 2018-2019 completers, EPP completers rated themselves higher than completers statewide in most areas. A sample of the findings is below.

Learner Development Completer Perceptions
...understanding of how learners grow and develop
Response Samford State
Strongly Agree 47% 43%
Agree 43% 53%
Disagree - -
Strongly Disagree - -

Source: 2018-2019 ALSDE Employer Completer Survey

Content Knowledge

The completer survey indicated that completers felt confident in the area of content knowledge and application of content. The ability to engage learners in critical thinking skills was lower than the statewide average at strongly agree, but above the statewide average at agree. A sample of the findings is below.

Content Knowledge Completer Perceptions
...encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas, make connections across content, and applies content knowledge in meaningful ways
Response Samford State
Strongly Agree 52% 52%
Agree 48% 44%
Disagree - -
Strongly Disagree - -

Source: 2018-2019 ALSDE Employer Completer Survey

Instructional Practice

According to the completer survey, completers performed at or above the statewide average in assessment, planning for instruction, and instructional strategies. Completers rated themselves especially high in the ability to implement assessments in an ethical manner and minimize bias to enable learners to display the full extent of their learning and the ability to plan instruction based on information from formative and summative assessments, as well as, other sources and systematically adjust plans to meet each student’s learning needs. There were minimal areas of concern, but two areas that were lower than the others were encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas, make connections across content, and apply content knowledge in meaningful ways and plan instruction by collaborating with colleagues, specialists, community resources, families, and learners to meet individual learning needs. Overall, all completers rated their performance in the first year of teaching consistently at or above the statewide averages. A sample of the findings is below.

Instructional Practice Completer Perceptions
...plan instruction based on information from formative and summative assessments as well as other sources and systematically adjust plans to meet each student's learning needs
Response Samford State
Strongly Agree 52% 52%
Agree 43% 44%
Disagree - -
Strongly Disagree - -

Source: 2018-2019 ALSDE Employer Completer Survey

Professionalism

The completer survey mirrored the employer survey in that completers ranked themselves well above the statewide average in the Professional Responsibility domain. Completers ranked themselves highest in the professional learning and ethical practice standard, particularly in the practice the profession in an ethical manner and engage in continuous professional learning to more effectively meet the needs of each student. Overall, all areas were ranked above the statewide average in professional responsibility indicating a real strength in the program. A sample of the findings is below.

Professionalism Completer Perceptions
...practice the profession in an ethical manner
Response Samford State
Strongly Agree 86% 62%
Agree 14% 38%
Disagree - -
Strongly Disagree - -

Source: 2018-2019 ALSDE Employer Completer Survey

  • Graduate survey (Initial/Advanced)—a survey of pre-service teachers as they exit the preparation program.

Measures of Program Outcome and Consumer Information

Measure 5: Graduation

Graduation Rates Chart

Total Number of Students Chart

May 2020 First Destination Data

Education First Destination Chart

Chart Data

School of Education First Destination
Destination Respondents
Employed 68%
Continuing Education 29%
Internship 1%
Seeking 2%

University First Destination Chart

Chart Data

University & School First Destinations

University Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 51%
Continuing Education 41%
Internship 3%
Seeking 5%
Arts Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 26
Continuing Education 8
Internship 3
Seeking 7
Arts & Sciences Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 95
Continuing Education 64
Internship 7
Seeking 15
Business Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 86
Continuing Education 39
Internship 5
Seeking 2
Education Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 45
Continuing Education 19
Internship 1
Seeking 1
Health Professions Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 36
Continuing Education 39
Internship 2
Seeking 3
Nursing Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 62
Continuing Education 1
Internship 0
Seeking 1
Pharmacy Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 0
Continuing Education 114
Internship 0
Seeking 0
Public Health Graduates
Destination Respondents
Employed 10
Continuing Education 6
Internship 3
Seeking 1

This data is representative for students who were planning to attend graduate school and/or were seeking employment. Knowledge/response rate: 93.6%. Data was collected through 11/9/20 via Bulldog Blastoff, email, LinkedIn, Facebook, phone calls, and faculty in individual schools.

Measure 6: Licensing & State Requirements

Measure 7: Employment

Initial Completers (N=76)
Response Respondents Percentage
Employed in Position for Which Trained 42 55.26%
Employed in Any Other Education Position - -
Enrolled in Continuing Education 3 3.94%
Other Employment 7 9.23%
Not Employed - -
Status Unknown 24 31.57%
Initial Advanced (N=89)
Response Respondents Percentage
Employed in Position for Which Trained 52 58.43%
Employed in Any Other Education Position 6 6.74%
Enrolled in Continuing Education - -
Other Employment - -
Not Employed - -
Status Unknown 31 34.83%
  • Employment follow-up—employment rates of completers of initial and advanced programs 12 months after program completion. Most employment occurs 2-3 months after completion but is documented at 12 months.

Measure 8: Student Loan Default Rates and Other Consumer Information

Samford Student Loan Default Rates
Year Rate
2015 1.9%
2014 2.1%
2013 2.0%
2012 0.7%

Source: Samford Director of Student Financial Services; Data: 2018-19 Samford Rate Schedule

CAEP Annual Reports

Continuous Improvement

edTPA

IHE Report Cards

Title II Reports

ncfr logo

The human development and family science undergraduate degree program at Samford University has been reviewed by the National Council on Family Relations. It has been recognized as an NCFR CFLE–approved program offering coursework covering the content required for the Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE) designation. Graduates of NCFR CFLE–approved programs qualify to apply for the CFLE designation via an abbreviated application process. Learn more about our Department of Human Development and Family Science.