CAEP Standards and Evidence Where we begin‌ Presenters:
Deborah Eldridge, CAEP Senior Vice President for Accreditation and Administration Mark LaCelle-Peterson, CAEP Senior Vice President for Engagement, Research and Development
Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
History: Context and Resource • Design Team problem: how far apart? • Extensive analysis of… – NCATE Standards and expectations and – TEAC Principles and practices
• Essential congruence of expectations: – Outcomes have priority over inputs – Continuous improvement expected Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
Current NCATE Standards 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Candidate knowledge Assessment Clinical and Field Experiences Diversity Faculty Governance and Resources
Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
TEAC Quality Principles 1.0 Evidence of Candidate Learning – 1.1 – 1.2 – 1.3 – 1.4 – 1.5
Subject Matter/Professional Knowledge Pedagogical/Strategic Knowledge Effective Teaching/Professional Practice 3 cross-cutting (Diversity, Tech., L2L) Reliability and Validity Evidence for above
2.0 Evidence of Faculty/Program Learning 3.0 Evidence of Capacity & Commitment Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
TEAC Standards of Evidence Evidence should be: 1. Representative: sample must be appropriate 2. Accurate: at least 75% verified in the audit 3. Consistent: consistent internally (within measures and across groups) 4. Valid: reliability & validity of evidence is known & adequate; rival explanations are ruled out 5. Sufficient: results meet established criteria or TEAC’s 75% heuristic (.75 of mean of top 10%) Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
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 NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
The CAEP Accreditation Process Steps in the CAEP Accreditation Process: – Eligibility of Educator Preparation Program (EPP) – Self-study of EPP completed & evaluated through • Formative Feedback and Off-site Review • Public Input (call-for-comment & 3rd party survey) • Onsite Visit with subsequent Report (and response)
– Decision by CAEP Accreditation Council – Annual Reports submitted and monitored Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
Three Paths to Meeting Standards • Evidence in self-study must show that the EPP meets all CAEP Standards • Self-study can take three formats: – Research on learning: Inquiry Brief (IB) – Documentation of performance: Continuous improvement (CI) – Research on program features: Transformation Initiative (TI) Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
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 NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
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 NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
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 NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
What Kinds of Standards? • Research base has informed the ‘bestpractice’ and ‘professional consensus’ standards • Aspirational framework evident both in terms of expectations for practice, improvement, and quality of evidence Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
The Challenges of Evidence Evidence categories are limited: • Course performance (assignments, grades) • Ratings of field performance (pre-service) • Collections of artifacts (portfolios) • Standardized tests (knowledge, performance) • Performance of P-12 students of candidates • Follow-up measures (surveys, observations) Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
Opportunities for Evidence • New data systems allow better analysis at the state and local (EPP) level • New performance measures promise more reliable common evidence • Common measures across multiple institutions would allow benchmarking • Common practices and collaboration will increase capacity for improvement Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
Tensions CAEP will need to promote: • High expectations, not business as usual • Productive innovation, not compliance • Choice and experimentation, not regimentation • Cultures of evidence and improvement, not of accommodation to the accreditor Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
CAEP Intent • Building EPP capacity to meet new challenges to the field • Fewer, clearer, higher expectations that are: – Rigorous – Transparent – Accountable – Outcomes-based – Inclusive Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org
Questions? Comments?
Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org