CAEP Transition: Facts, Questions, and Answers…

Connect with CAEPon Twitter: @CAEPupdates

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

DevelopmentShari Francis, NCATE Vice President for State

RelationsElizabeth Vilky, CAEP Director of Program

Reviews


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


Part I:Where is CAEP today?

Overview of CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting, alignments, and transition

timeline


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


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


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


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)


Questions? Comments?


Part II

CAEP Accreditation Process:

Theme and VariationsUpdate on Continuous Improvement (CI),

Transformation Initiative (TI) and Inquiry Brief (IB) pathways


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)


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 research-level quality of the evidence presented


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


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


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




PART III

CAEP State Partnerships


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


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




PART IV

CAEP Program Review Options


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


CAEP Program Review with National Recognition

OverviewFormat: 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



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



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



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


CAEP Program Review with Feedback

OverviewFormat: 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 standardsTiming of Submission: At the same time as the IB or IR

(roughly 8-12 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


State Program ReviewOverviewFormat: State-defined processStandards: State-selected standardsReviewers: State review teamResults: 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.




PART VMISCELLANY

Update on Part C Annual Reports, Status of CHEA recognition


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




CAEP Information

www.caepsite.org

http://www.caepsite.org/

Documents

CAEP Transition: Facts, Questions, and Answers…