Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation CAEP Update to OCTEO October 24, 2012

1. Council for the Accreditation of Educator PreparationCAEP Update to OCTEOOctober 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

2. Presentation Overview • CAEP Goals and Context • CAEP Standards Development • Capacity Building: Data and Reporting • Elements of the CAEP Accreditation System

3. Part 1: CAEP Goals and Context

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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

7. Accreditation and Innovation • Supportive innovationsimprove existing enterprises, e.g. by increasing quality and/or efficiency • Disruptive innovationschange the state of play as new players or new undercut the existing enterprises • Can accreditation play either role?

8. 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

9. 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 recognitionby USDE and CHEA

10. Part 2. CAEP Standards Development

11. 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)

12. Current NCATE Standards • Candidate knowledge • Assessment • Clinical and Field Experiences • Diversity • Faculty • Governance and Resources

13. Current TEAC Quality Principles 1. Evidence of Candidate Learning 1.1 Subject Matter/Professional Knowledge 1.2 Pedagogical/Strategic Knowledge 1.3 Effective Teaching/Professional Practice 1.4 3 cross-cutting (Diversity, Tech., L2L) 1.5 Reliability and Validity Evidence for above 2. Evidence of Faculty/Program Learning 3. Evidence of Capacity & Commitment

14. Current CAEP Standards • Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for effective work in schools. • Data drive decisions about candidates & programs. • 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…

15. 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

16. Commission Working Groups • Content and Pedagogical Knowledge • Clinical Practice and Partnerships • Quality/Selectivity of Candidates • Capacity, Quality, Continuous Improvement • Public Accountability and Transparency

17. 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

18. Part 3. Capacity Building: Data and Reporting

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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)?

23. Standards of Evidence Evidence must be: • Representative: sample must be appropriate • Accurate: as verified in the accreditation visit • Reliable: Robust, stable, repeatable • Valid: validity (and reliability) of evidence for uses is known and adequate • Sufficient: results meet established criteria • Actionable: measure what matters—and use it!

24. In other words… Evidence must be: • Fair:a representative sample is required • Trustworthy: verified as accurate in the audit • Reliable: consistent w psychometric expectations • True: the validity of the evidence must be shown • Sufficient: must meet established criteria • Useful: should clearly inform improvement efforts

25. 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?

26. Part 4. Elements of the CAEP Accreditation System

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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)

31. 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 research-level quality of the evidence presented

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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!

35. CAEP program reviewwith 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

36. CAEP Program Review with Feedback Timeline for implementation:

37. 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

38. 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 • Priorityon stakeholder input and buy-in • Professional development credit for participating teachers • Input from AACTE State Chapters

39. 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?

40. Questions? Comments?

41. CAEP Information www.caepsite.org Information on NCATE, TEAC, and CAEP websites