Using LiveText™ for Institutional Effectiveness Assessment

Transitioning from NCATE to CAEP
November 10, 2014
Dr. Lance Tomei
Retired (2013) Director for Assessment, Accreditation, and Data Management, University of Central
Florida, College of Education and Human Performance
Former NCATE Coordinator, University of Central Florida
Experienced NCATE BOE Team Chair; Trained CAEP Site Visit Team Leader
• Acknowledgement & Disclaimer
• Context for the CAEP Standards
• Similarities between what has been required for NCATE and
what is required for CAEP
• Differences: What are the main “new” or materially different
requirements for CAEP?
• Some general observations about CAEP standards and their
• Strategies and resources to help you transition from NCATE
CAEP: The Big Picture
• CAEP’s Hallmarks:
– Continuous Improvement
– Transformation
– Evidence and Inquiry
• CAEP’s Interim (overarching) Standards:
– Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions for effective work in schools
– Data drive decisions about candidates and programs
– Resources and practices support candidate learning
Standards Commission: 4 Critical Points of Leverage
Build partnerships and strong clinical experiences
Raise and assure candidate quality
Include all providers
Insist that preparation be judged by outcomes and
impact on P-12 student learning and developmentResults matter; effort is not enough.
The Standards
NCATE Standards
CAEP Standards
1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and
Professional Dispositions
1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice
3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and
4: Diversity
4: Program Impact
5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and
5: Provider Quality Assurance and
Continuous Improvement
6: Unit Governance and Resources
CAEP/NCATE Crosswalk
CAEP Standards/Components
NCATE Standards/Elements
Examples of Relevant NCATE
Recommended Exhibits
Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and
Knowledge. The provider ensures that
Professional Dispositions
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
1.1 Candidates demonstrate an understanding 1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher
of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate Candidates; 1b. Pedagogical Content
progression level(s) in the following
Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates;
categories: the learner and learning; content; 1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
instructional practice; and professional
and Skills for Teacher Candidates; 1d. Student
Learning for Teacher Candidates; 1g.
Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
1.3.c - Key assessments and scoring guides
InTASC Standards: 1-Learner Development, 2used for assessing candidate learning against Learning Differences, 3-Learning
professional and state standards . . .; 1.3.d - Environments, 4-Content Knowledge, 5Aggregate data on key assessments . . .; 1.3.g - Application of Content, 6-Assessment, 7Examples of candidates’ assessment and
Planning for Instruction, 8-Instructional
analysis of P-12 student learning; 1.3.h Strategies, 9-Professional Learning and Ethical
Examples of candidates' work. . . from
practice, 10-Leadership and Collaboration
programs across the unit
Provider Responsibilities
1.2 Providers ensure that completers use
1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
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.
Need to establish criteria to assess this since
the target group for which data are needed is
program completers, not candidates.
Standard 1 vs. Standard 4
• Standard 1 Components 1.2 through 1.5 all begin with,
“Providers ensure that completers …” BUT…
• From CAEP Evidence Guide: “NOTE: In Standard 1, the
subjects of components are “candidates.” The specific
knowledge and skills described will develop over the
course of the preparation program and may be
assessed at any point, some near admission, others at
key transitions such as entry to clinical experience and
still others near candidate exit as preparation is
• Standard 1: Candidate-focused
• Standard 4: Completer-focused
Similarities (cont.)
• The good news:
– Some of the recommended evidence for NCATE
standards will also support CAEP standards.*
– CAEP acknowledges that “providers begin in different
places . . . [but] must be on a certain path to reach . . .
more rigorous standards and evidence expectations.”
• Emphasis remains on candidates’ performance and
continuous quality improvement with heighted emphasis on
program impact (most importantly, impact on P-12 student
*But you may need to improve the quality of your assessment
instruments to ensure that you have valid, reliable data
Major Differences
• Focus of new CAEP standards is on output variables; most capacity
metrics are reported outside the standards framework
• Conceptual framework is never explicitly referenced, but “EPP’s
Shared Values and Beliefs for Educator Preparation” are reported via
the Self Study
• Diversity and Technology are “cross-cutting themes” (integrated)
• Emphasis on partnerships in clinical practice and a need to more
proactively engage partners and stakeholders
• Emphasis on impact of program completers (Standard 4)
• Expectation of benchmarking (5.4)
• Professional dispositions are re-envisioned
Research-based Professional Dispositions:
“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 .”
Major Differences (cont.)
• Specific incorporation of InTASC Model Core Teaching
Standards (“Content and pedagogical knowledge expected of
candidates is articulated through the InTASC standards.”)
• Reference to “rigorous college- and career-ready [P-12] standards”
• 1.2 Providers ensure that completers 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 development.
• Progressive, phased increase in admission requirements
– Cohort average is in the top 50 percent of “nationally normed
ability/achievement assessments such as ACT, SAT, or GRE” from 2016-2017
– Top 40 percent from 2018-2019
– Top 33 percent by 2020
Major Differences (cont.)
• Changes in annual reporting requirements and actionability of
annual data (“trigger points”)
• Probable expansion of critical accreditation indicators
– Current example: 80 percent (or state requirement if higher) pass rate
on certification examination within two administrations
– All components of Standard 4!
– Components 5.3 and 5.4 of Standard 5
– Program outcome and consumer information:
• Completer or graduation rates
• Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional
state accreditation requirements
• Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they are
Major Differences (cont.)
• Acknowledgement that new and improved accountability
metrics are needed: “…many measures of both academic and non-academic
factors associated with high-quality teaching and learning need to be studied for
reliability, validity, and fairness. CAEP should encourage development and research
related to these measures. It would be shortsighted to specify particular metrics
narrowly because of the now fast-evolving interest in, insistence on, and
development of new and much stronger preparation assessments, observational
measures, student surveys, and descriptive metrics.”
• Heightened expectations for the quality of evidence
– Stakeholder involvement (contribution to validity)
– Development of key activities and associated assessment instruments
– Provide “empirical evidence that interpretations of data are valid and consistent
– Implications for design of key activities and associated assessment instruments
– Attention to “Principles for Measures Used in the CAEP Accreditation
Process” (Peter Ewell, May 29, 2013)
Principles for Measures Used in the CAEP Accreditation Process
(Peter Ewell, May 29, 2013)
Validity and Reliability
Stakeholder Interest
Vulnerability to Manipulation
10. Actionability
Implications for Key Assessments:
• The quality of key assessment instruments will be extremely important
– Assessment System
– Supporting Technology
– Key Assessment Instruments
– …building an arch!
• Key considerations:
– Who should participate, and who should take the lead?
– Comprehensiveness and articulation of key formative and key summative assessments
– Self-selected or directed artifacts?
– Assignment-assessment alignment
– Can you demonstrate the validity and reliability of your current supporting evidence?
New CAEP Requirement Announced at
the Fall 2014 CAEP Conference
At its fall 2014 conference, CAEP announced that its
accreditation process will require the submission of all
key assessment instruments (rubrics, surveys, etc.) used
by an Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) to generate
data provided as evidence in support of CAEP
accreditation. Once CAEP accreditation timelines are
fully implemented, this will occur three years prior to the
on-site visit. Submissions will be evaluated for quality by
a panel of assessment experts and feedback will be
provided to the EPP well in advance of the
reaccreditation review.
Attributes of an Effective Rubric
 Rubric & the assessed activity or artifact are well-articulated
 Rubric has construct validity (e.g., standards-aligned) and content
validity (rubric criteria represent all critical indicators for the
competency to be assessed)
 Each criterion assesses an individual construct (there are no
double- or multiple-barreled criteria)
 To enhance reliability, performance descriptors should:
Provide concrete/objective distinctions between performance levels
(there is no overlap between performance levels)
Collectively address all possible performance levels (there is no gap
between performance levels)
Eliminate or minimize double/multiple-barrel narratives (exception:
progression of additional components at higher performance levels)
 Rubric contains no unnecessary performance levels (e.g.,
multiple levels of mastery)
 Resulting data are actionable
“Meta-rubric” to Evaluate Rubric Quality
Rubric alignment to
The rubric includes multiple
criteria that are not explicitly or
implicitly reflected in the
assignment directions for the
learning activity to be assessed.
The rubric includes one criterion
that is not explicitly or implicitly
reflected in the assignment
directions for the learning
activity to be assessed.
The rubric criteria accurately
match the performance criteria
reflected in the assignment
directions for the learning
activity to be assessed.
of Criteria
More than one critical indicator
for the competency or standard
being assessed is not reflected in
the rubric.
One critical indicator for the
competency or standard being
assessed is not reflected in the
All critical indicators for the
competency or standard being
assessed are reflected in the
Integrity of Criteria
More than one criterion contains
multiple, independent
constructs (similar to “doublebarreled survey question).
One criterion contains multiple,
independent constructs. All
other criteria each consist of a
single construct.
Each criterion consists of a single
Quality of
Performance descriptors are not
distinct (i.e., mutually exclusive)
AND collectively do not include
all possible learning outcomes.
Performance descriptors are not
distinct (i.e., mutually exclusive)
OR collectively do not include all
possible learning outcomes.
Performance descriptors are
distinct (mutually exclusive) AND
collectively include all possible
learning outcomes.
“To Do” List
• Conduct a thorough review of current key assessments (formative and
summative) and map them against CAEP Standards/Components
• If your focus is on state or national professional standards, ensure that
InTASC standards are correlated as well
• Evaluate key assessments for validity, reliability, and fairness—some
assessment instruments may need to be revised
• Identify evidence requirements (associated with CAEP Standards
Components) that current assessments/data don’t yet support and initiate
plans to fill the gaps (see correlation matrix)
• Strengthen P-12 and stakeholder partnerships
• Establish a comprehensive data analysis plan
• Review your continuous quality improvement policies and practices
The Continuous Quality Improvement Cycle
LiveText™ Visitor Pass
Go to
Click on “Use Visitor Pass”
Enter “9409ACEF” in the Pass Code
Click on Visitor Pass Entry
You will have access to
This PowerPoint presentation
CAEP Accreditation Standards 130829
CAEP Standards for Advanced Programs 140605
CAEP Evidence Guide 130611
Principles for Measures Used in the CAEP Accreditation Process (Peter
Ewell, May 29, 2013)
– InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue
(April 2011)
– My updated, unofficial NCATE/CAEP standards correlation matrix.
– My “meta-rubric” for evaluating rubric quality

similar documents