Council for the Accreditation
of Educator Preparation
CAEP Update to OCTEO
October 24, 2012
Mark LaCelle-Peterson
—President, Teacher Education Accreditation Council
—Senior Vice President for Engagement, Research and
Development, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Presentation Overview
1. CAEP Goals and Context
2. CAEP Standards Development
3. Capacity Building: Data and Reporting
4. Elements of the CAEP Accreditation System
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Part 1: CAEP Goals and Context
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP GOALS
Raise the performance of candidates as
educators in the nation’s P-12 schools.
Raise the stature of the profession by raising
standards for the evidence the field relies on
to support its claims of quality.
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP’s Context
Launching in choppy seas:
• Enrollments and endowments down
• Regulation and public scrutiny up (for all)
• Expectations elevated (common core)
• Trust wavering, critics vocal
• Delivery modes diversifying
What role can accreditation play?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Barrier or Support to Change?
…a barrier to disruptive innovation [is]
created by accreditation… [p 17]
Christensen and Eyring
The Innovative University
…the situation has changed.[a]ccreditation
has become more focused on learning
outcomes…] [p 209]
Christensen and Eyring
The Innovative University
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Accreditation and Innovation
• Supportive innovations
improve existing enterprises, e.g. by
increasing quality and/or efficiency
• Disruptive innovations
change the state of play as new players or
new undercut the existing enterprises
• Can accreditation play either role?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
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
• Transparency versus candor
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Dimensions of the CAEP Launch
• Non-accreditation functions now being consolidated
(AIMS, staffing, applications, billing, etc.)
• Joint CAEP/NCATE and CAEP/TEAC accreditation
reviews using CAEP standards are in process:
• Inquiry Brief; Continuous Improvement; Transformation Initiative
• Standards Commission: moving ahead!
(Draft standards to be released for feedback Feb 2013, final Dec 2013?)
• State partnerships renegotiated
(2012 pilot states KS, MI MO,
OH, OR, & UT)
• Seeking recognition by USDE and CHEA
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Part 2. CAEP Standards Development
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
History as Context and Resource
• Design Team problem: how far apart were we?
• Extensive analysis of…
– NCATE Standards & expectations & processes
– TEAC Principles & practices & processes
• Essential congruence of expectations:
– Outcomes have priority over inputs
– Continuous improvement (internally & externally)
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Current NCATE Standards
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Candidate knowledge
Assessment
Clinical and Field Experiences
Diversity
Faculty
Governance and Resources
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Current TEAC Quality Principles
1. 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. Evidence of Faculty/Program Learning
3. Evidence of Capacity & Commitment
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Current CAEP Standards
1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions for effective work in schools.
2. Data drive decisions about candidates & programs.
3. Resources and practices support candidate learning.
– Harmonization of Standards and Principles
– Adopted as equivalent to predecessors
– Basis for CAEP’s accreditation decisions
But stay tuned…
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP Standards Commission
Themes for the commission:
• Higher expectations for candidates, completers
• Clearer standards for better evidence
• Need to build the field’s knowledge base
• Emphasis on clinical partnerships/practice
• Support for variety of models of preparation
• Feedback from field will be critical to success
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Commission Working Groups
• Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
• Clinical Practice and Partnerships
• Quality/Selectivity of Candidates
• Capacity, Quality, Continuous Improvement
• Public Accountability and Transparency
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Comment and Input
• Nov 2012 Internal discussion of initial draft
• Feb 2013 Public Comment Period
• April 2013 Finalization of Standards
• Summer 2013 Adoption by CAEP Board
• 2013-14 Publication and Voluntary Use
• Post-2014 Full Implementation
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Part 3. Capacity Building: Data and
Reporting
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP’s Intent
• Building EPP capacity to meet new challenges
to the field
• (Fewer), clearer, higher expectations that are:
– Rigorous
– Transparent
– Accountable
– Outcomes-based
– Inclusive (the same for all providers)
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP is Committed to Capacity Building
Data environment is dynamic:
• Increasing use of data for accountability
and improvement
• Changing Title 2 data for reporting to states
& USDE
• New sources of data for monitoring quality
of educator preparation
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
New Data Sources…
• “A little data can go a long way…”
• There are no silver bullets – all data sources
have limitations that can be known
• Multiple data sources complement each
other
• Linking data sources can yield explanations
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Focus: Evidence about the evidence…
Evidence of candidate learning will need to
include evidence of the data’s quality:
How does the faculty know its interpretations
are of data are valid and reliable?
(or consistent and trustworthy)?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Standards of Evidence
Evidence must be:
1. Representative: sample must be appropriate
2. Accurate: as verified in the accreditation visit
3. Reliable: Robust, stable, repeatable
4. Valid: validity (and reliability) of evidence for uses
is known and adequate
5. Sufficient: results meet established criteria
6. Actionable: measure what matters—and
use it!
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
In other words…
Evidence must be:
1. Fair: a representative sample is required
2. Trustworthy: verified as accurate in the audit
3. Reliable: consistent w psychometric expectations
4. True: the validity of the evidence must be shown
5. Sufficient: must meet established criteria
6. Useful: should clearly inform improvement efforts
24
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
A Challenge for CAEP and the Field
• How can accreditation support program
improvement?
• How can evidence produced as part of
accreditation studies document quality?
• How can policy be smarter about data?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Part 4.
Elements of the
CAEP Accreditation System
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
The CAEP Accreditation Process
Steps in the CAEP Accreditation Process:
– Eligibility of Educator Preparation Provider (EPP)
• No longer the NCATE “unit” or TEAC “program”
– 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 CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP Process Features:
• Formative (TEAC)/Off-site (NCATE) Phase
• Clearer expectations and better initial drafts
• Earlier feedback to institution on possible issues
• Accreditation Review visits focused, better informed
• Corroboration through Third Party surveys
• Constituent input to corroborate EPP claims
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP Process Features:
• Decision by CAEP Accreditation Council
• Double review of decisions (NCATE’s UAB model)
• Larger/smaller issues differentiated with decision rules
(TEAC model)
• Annual Reports consistent and useful
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Pathways to Meeting Standards
• Self-study must show CAEP Standards met
• Self-study format selected to emphasize:
– Research on candidate learning:
Inquiry Brief (IB)
– Research on program improvement:
Continuous improvement (CI)
– Research on key program features:
Transformation Initiative (TI)
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Inquiry Brief (IB)
• Focus: Faculty investigate: 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
www.caepsite.org
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
www.caepsite.org
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
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Choice of options for presenting evidence in
various certificate programs
1. CAEP/NCATE Program Review with National
Recognition (SPA review)
2. CAEP Program Review with Feedback
3. State Program Review
Each state will negotiate a new agreement with CAEP to
define the options for Program Review available to the
institutions within each state. Ohio was the first!
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP program review
with feedback
• Program Reports submitted at the same time as the
main self-study document
• Includes specialty program areas reviewed in clusters
(elem, sec, other) in relation to state-selected standards
and CAEP standards
• Reviewers trained by CAEP evaluate the Program Reports
based on state-selected standards and CAEP standards
• Result: Feedback to the programs as to whether
standards are “supported” or “not supported” by the
information in the report
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP Program Review with Feedback
Timeline for implementation:
Winter/Spring 2012
Pilot state partnership agreements are created for five states (KS, MI, MO, OH, OR, & UT)
including the selection of the Program Review options acceptable for institutions in each state
Spring/Summer 2012 Institutions are identified for invitation to a pilot of the Program Review with Feedback option to
occur in Spring 2013. Eligible institutions will be those with Fall 2014 onsite visits in states offer
Program Review with Feedback as an option.
Summer/Fall 2012
A small group of reviewers for the Spring 2013 Pilot will participate in reviewer training. Invitations
will be made to institutions in the pilot states with Spring 2015 onsite visits for inclusion in the
second cycle of pilot reviews for Program Review with Feedback.
Spring 2013
First pilot cycle of the Program Review with Feedback option will occur with reports due to CAEP
on March 15, 2013 and responses delivered to institutions and states by August 1, 2013. (This is the
same review timing as Program Review for National Recognition.)
Spring/Summer 2013 All parties will be surveyed to collect input for revisions and clarifications needed. Additional states
will establish state partnership agreements with CAEP and begin to be identified for Program
Review with Feedback. CAEP will begin offering additional training to institutions (beyond the
institutions participating in the two pilot cycles) preparing for Program Review with Feedback.
Summer/Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Reviewer training will be conducted following a broad call for reviewers to begin building a pool of
trained reviewers for Program Review with Feedback.
Program Review with Feedback operates as a regular option along with Program Review for
National Recognition (SPA Review).
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
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 and State, Concurrent CAEP and 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
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP State Partnerships
• Development of initial agreements in 2012
Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah
• Benefits:
– 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 development credit for participating teachers
Connect with CAEP
– Input from AACTE State Chapters
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Back to the Top…
• How can your accreditor help the field
develop supportive innovations?
• Could development of strong evidence
systems help us to develop the disruptive
innovations that transform the field?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
Questions? Comments?
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates
CAEP Information
www.caepsite.org
Information on NCATE, TEAC, and CAEP websites
Connect with CAEP
www.caepsite.org
Twitter: @caepupdates