Overview of CAEP standards

Report
CAEP Transition:
Facts, Questions, and Answers…
Presenters:
Deborah Eldridge, CAEP Senior Vice President for
Accreditation and Administration
Mark LaCelle-Peterson, CAEP Senior Vice President for
Engagement, Research and Development
Shari Francis, NCATE Vice President for State
Relations
Elizabeth Vilky, CAEP Director of Program Reviews
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Overview of the Presentation
• Part I: Where is CAEP today?
– Overview of CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance
Reporting, alignments, and transition timeline
• Part II: CAEP Accreditation Processes
– Update on Continuous Improvement (CI), Transformation
Initiative (TI) and Inquiry Brief (IB) pathways
• Part III: State Partnerships
• Part IV: Program Review Options
• Part V: Miscellany
– Update on Part C Annual Reports, Status of CHEA recognition
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Part I:
Where is CAEP today?
Overview of CAEP Commission on Standards and
Performance Reporting, alignments, and transition
timeline
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Overview of CAEP standards
• CAEP Commission on Standards and
Performance Reporting
• 41 Commissioners convened in May 2012
• 5 working groups established:
•
•
•
•
•
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
Clinical Practice and Partnerships
Quality/Selectivity of Candidates
Capacity, Quality and Continuous Improvement
Accreditation, Public Accountability, and Transparency
• Draft standards to be released for public comment
in early 2013
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Current CAEP Standards
1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge…
2. Data drive decisions…
3. Resources support learning…
• Harmonization of Standards and Principles
• Adopted as equivalent to predecessors
• Basis for CAEP’s accreditation decisions
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Alignments
• NCATE Standards and TEAC Quality
Principles are aligned with the initial CAEP
standards
• Final draft of new standards will be
released in late 2013 with alignment
tables for guidance
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP timeline
• Non-accreditation functions are currently consolidated
(AIMS, staffing, applications, billing, etc.)
• Draft Standards released for public comment in early
2013
• Final standards released in late 2013
• 2 year transition period through 2015
• Institutions can choose to come up for accreditation under
NCATE standards, TEAC quality principles, CAEP standards,
or both NCATE/CAEP or TEAC/CAEP
• Spring 2016 is the earliest when CAEP standards will
be required (date of self-study submission)
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Part II
CAEP Accreditation Process:
Theme and Variations
Update on Continuous Improvement (CI), Transformation
Initiative (TI) and Inquiry Brief (IB) pathways
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Pathways to Meeting Standards
• Evidence in self-study must show that the
EPP meets all CAEP Standards
• Self-study format selected to emphasize:
– Research on learning: Inquiry Brief (IB)
– Documentation of performance: Continuous
improvement (CI)
– Research on program features:
Transformation Initiative (TI)
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Inquiry Brief (IB)
• Focus: Faculty investigation of (a) candidate
performance; (b) quality of evidence; (c) use of
evidence for program improvement
• Emphasis: Meeting ‘research-level standard’ in
the quality of evidence & candidate performance
• Accreditation Decision: Based on meeting all
CAEP standards with recognition of researchlevel quality of the evidence presented
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Continuous Improvement (CI)
• Focus: Continuous improvement of programs
and practices of an educator preparation
provider (EPP)
• Emphasis: Moving to target-level performance
on standard(s) selected by the EPP
• Accreditation Decision: Based on meeting all
CAEP standards at the adequate level with
recognition of target performance
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Transformation Initiative (TI)
• Focus: A broad-based initiative to transform an
educator preparation provider’s teacher education
programs and practices to serve as a model
• Emphasis: Research-centered to inform the
profession about best practices and what works
• Accreditation Decision: Based on meeting all
CAEP standards with recognition of TI research
and innovations
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Accreditation Process
Steps in the CAEP accreditation process:
– Eligibility of Educator Preparation Provider (EPP)
• No longer the NCATE “unit” or the TEAC “program”
– Self-study of EPP completed & evaluated through
• Formative Feedback and Offsite Review
• Public Input (call-for-comment & third-party survey)
• Onsite Visit with Subsequent Report (and response)
– Decision by CAEP Accreditation Council
– Annual Reports submitted and monitored
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
PART III
CAEP State Partnerships
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
State Partnership Options
• Member Partners
– CAEP and Authority/Authorities for Educator Preparation (State
DoE, State Standards Board, Board of Regents and/or Higher
Education Commission)
• Teams
– CAEP, Joint CAEP & State, Concurrent CAEP & State
• Program review
– CAEP Review (leads to national recognition)
– CAEP Review with feedback
– State Review
• One Institutional Report
– Optional minimal state addendum
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP State Partnerships
• Pilot testing in 2012
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, & Utah
• Benefits include:
– Eliminates duplication of effort
– Saves time and money
– Access to the Accreditation Information Management System
(AIMS): AIMS password and access to state institutions
– Information for use in program approval/renewal
– Participation in professional development (PD), including Spring
CAEP Clinic, web training, and expense-only PD
• Priority on stakeholder input and buy-in
– Professional dev. credit for participating teachers
– Input from AACTE State Chapters
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
PART IV
CAEP Program Review Options
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Requirements
• All EPPs seeking CAEP Accreditation must
complete program review
• States will define the program review
options available to institutions as part of
the new CAEP State Partnership
Agreement
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Program Review with
National Recognition
Overview
Format: Program report forms completed for each program area and
level (i.e. Undergraduate Secondary Biology, Reading Specialist
Masters, etc.) describing evidence of candidates' performance on a
set of key assessments that demonstrates meeting standards
Standards: Specialty Professional Association (SPA) standards
Timing of Submission: Mid-cycle of the overall accreditation cycle (3
years in advance of the accreditation visit for most states)
Reviewers: SPA review teams trained by both the SPAs and CAEP
Results: Recognition Report with a decision of "Nationally
Recognized," "Recognized with Conditions," or "Further Development
Required/Recognized with Probation/Not Nationally Recognized"
Comment: This is the only option that can lead to national recognition
by CAEP/SPAs
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Program Review with
National Recognition
Option A
• Assessment 1: State Licensure Exam
• Assessment 2: Additional Content Assessment
• Assessment 3: Assessment of Candidates’ Ability to Plan
Instruction
• Assessment 4: Assessment of Student Teaching/Internship
Performance
• Assessment 5: Assessment of Candidate Impact on Student
Performance
• Assessment 6: Additional Required Assessment (specified for
some SPAs such as the OPI for ACTFL)
• Assessments 7 & 8: Optional Additional Assessments
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Program Review with
National Recognition
Option B: Institution-Defined Assessments
• Maximum of 8 assessments
• Must include state licensure exam data
• Demonstrates content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge
and skills, and candidate impact on student learning
• Reviewed with SPA standards
Option C: Continuing Recognition
• Used by programs previously Nationally Recognized by the SPA using
Option A (in the current assessment-based system since Fall 2004)
• Not an option if the SPA standards have changed since the previous
review
• Reduced documentation; however, current assessment descriptions
and data (at least two administrations of each assessment) must be
included
• Specific instructions on the web site should be thoroughly read
before preparing an Option C report
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Program Review with
National Recognition
Option D: Validity & Reliability Study
• Program conducts validity and reliability studies of its assessments in
lieu of other program report evidence requirements
• Must seek permission from CAEP to pursue Option D in advance
Option IL/PB: Initial Licensure/Post-Bacc
• For “MAT-like” programs for secondary level licensure in all or some
of the five secondary content areas – foreign language (ACTFL),
social studies (NCSS), English (NCTE), mathematics (NCTM), &
science (NSTA)
• Leads to National Recognition by CAEP, not the individual SPAs
• Currently being reviewed by the five SPA Coordinators
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Program Review with
Feedback
Overview
Format: Program report forms completed with links to information
found in the IB or IR documents for three clusters of programs secondary content area programs, cross-grade programs, and other
school personnel programs
Standards: State-selected standards
Timing of Submission: At the same time as the IB or IR (roughly 812 months in advance of the visit)
Reviewers: Review teams by cluster trained by CAEP and including
reviewers identified by the state, NEA/AFT, NBPTS, AACTE/ATE,
and/or other sources
Results: Feedback useful for program improvement and determination
of state program approval
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
State Program Review
Overview
Format: State-defined process
Standards: State-selected standards
Reviewers: State review team
Results: State decision regarding program approval
Comment: The state process and standards will be reviewed by CAEP
when the state wishes to NOT include a requirement for national
review. States may request a review of state standards by SPAs to
determine how closely aligned the state standards are to the SPA
standards. States may also apply for authorization to award national
recognition as a result of the state process, in which case the
standards and program review processes would be reviewed by both
CAEP and the SPAs.
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
PART V
MISCELLANY
Update on Part C Annual Reports, Status of CHEA
recognition
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Status of Recognition
• Status of 501(c)3 : Achieved!
• Status of CHEA recognition: In
progress
• NCATE and TEAC are piloting accreditation
review with initial CAEP standards in Fall 2012
• Inquiry Brief; Continuous Improvement;
Transformation Initiative pathways are all
piloting with NCATE/CAEP standards or
TEAC/CAEP quality principles
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates
CAEP Information
www.caepsite.org
Connect with CAEP
on Twitter: @CAEPupdates

similar documents