Lessons from a CAEP Early-Adopter Micki M. Caskey, Ph.D. Leslee Peterson, M.A., M.S.

Agenda Process Outcomes Lessons and Tips Where are we now?

Selecting evidence Process

Process 1. Start with the standards Deconstruct standards Brainstorm evidence Teacher evaluation data Includes elements on P12 assessment Aggregated reports Comparators/expectations Presentations to partners Data review documentation Process Based on this example, what evidence could you use for Standard 5.4? 1. Start with the standards

Process 2. Compile a list of evidence CAEP Standards with notes Initial License Program Standards Key Ideas Essential meaning Notes for narrative 1.1 Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility. Demonstrate InTASC Candidates need to be familiar with InTASC Refer to each program curriculum map which aligns with InTASC standards for both courses and assessments. 1.2 Providers ensure that completers use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their own professional practice. Professional pedagogy Candidates use data and research in practice Refer to GSE Conceptual Framework standard "2. Research based practices and professional standards" as evidence of using research, and "4.1 Candidates use evidenced to address problems of practice and make informed educational and therapeutic decisions" as evidence of using student progress Process 2. Compile a list of evidence

Process 3. Compile the list of evidence CAEP Standards with evidence Where is documentation currently housed for use with CAEP accreditation? 3. Compile the list of evidence

Process 4. Tell the story Final Evidence List 5 holistic summaries Average 15 supporting documents per standard 2 Cross-Cutting themes 4 Tables 10 documents responding to past AFIs 7 Selected Improvement Plan (SIP)documents Process Who is on your team? While we were the main writing team, we relied on the help of many: program coordinators and chairs admission office data coordinator 4. Tell the story

Process 5. Submit-Revise-Visit Submit and Revise Received questions from offsite team Revised documents, added 10 more artifacts Added more detail to SIP Site Visit 12 group interviews (80 people) 11 Exhibits 2 School Visits Process 5. Submit-Revise-Visit

Outcomes

Outcomes Strengths and recognition Content Pedagogy/standards coverage (#1) Partnerships (#2) Diversification efforts (#3) Assessment system (#5) Areas for Improvement Technology standards (#1.5) Admission validity (#3.2) Completer Impact (#4.2) Assessment reliability and validity (#5.2) Outcomes What are your program's strengths? Which standards are hardest for you meet?

Lessons & Tips

Looking back Early adopter pitfalls (changing format, no handbook, no rubric, untrained team) Process was supported (help from CAEP staff, self-study off-site and addendum process) Strong assessment system bears fruit (maps, data review, assessment fair) Interviews and exhibits were important (helped fill gaps and highlighted strengths) Most AFIs match known weaknesses Lessons

Tips Tips Start early Build an assessment culture and system Have writing time Number your evidence items, use file naming convention Consider using google docs (feedback loops and shared authorship) Call/email CAEP staff with questions; participate in CAEP Con (it is helpful) Focus onand highlight your EPP’s strenghs Tips

Where are we now?

Where are we now? Completing the annual report (AFIs) Strengthening our reliability and validity of key assessments Planning a long-term study on admission criteria Working with advance programs Improving our technology preparation Where are we now?

Leslee Peterson lesleep@pdx.edu Assessment Coordinator Micki Caskey caskeym@pdx.edu Associate Dean Contact Information