1 / 32

CAEP Transition: Facts, Questions, and Answers…

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

rasha
Télécharger la présentation

CAEP Transition: Facts, Questions, and Answers…

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Part I:Where is CAEP today?Overview of CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting, alignments, and transition timeline

  4. 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

  5. Current CAEP Standards • Candidates demonstrate knowledge… • Data drive decisions… • Resources support learning… • Harmonization of Standards and Principles • Adopted as equivalent to predecessors • Basis for CAEP’s accreditation decisions

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. Questions? Comments?

  9. Part II CAEP Accreditation Process:   Theme and Variations Update on Continuous Improvement (CI), Transformation Initiative (TI) and Inquiry Brief (IB) pathways

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Questions? Comments?

  16. PART III CAEP State Partnerships

  17. 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

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

  19. Questions? Comments?

  20. PART IV CAEP Program Review Options

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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 8-12 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

  27. 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.

  28. Questions? Comments?

  29. PART V MISCELLANY Update on Part C Annual Reports, Status of CHEA recognition

  30. 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

  31. Questions? Comments?

  32. CAEP Information www.caepsite.org

More Related