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