Presentation - "CAEP Standards & Evidence" ...

Connect with NCATE: on Twitter: @ncate on Facebook: facebook.com/ncate.org

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


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


Current NCATE Standards

1. Candidate knowledge 2. Assessment 3. Clinical and Field Experiences 4. Diversity 5. Faculty 6. Governance and Resources


TEAC Quality Principles 1.0 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

2.0 Evidence of Faculty/Program Learning 3.0 Evidence of Capacity & Commitment


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%)


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


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


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)


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


What Kinds of Standards?

• Research base has informed the ‘best-practice’ and ‘professional consensus’ standards

• Aspirational framework evident both in terms of expectations for practice, improvement, and quality of evidence


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)


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


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


CAEP Intent

• Building EPP capacity to meet new challenges to the field

• Fewer, clearer, higher expectations that are: – Rigorous – Transparent – Accountable – Outcomes-based – Inclusive


Questions? Comments?

Presentation - "CAEP Standards & Evidence" ...

Documents

Transcript of Presentation - "CAEP Standards & Evidence" ...