Standard 3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director, Site Visitor Development and EPP Accreditation Procedures Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org

Session Overview Of CAEP Initial-Licensure and Advanced-Level Standard 3/A.3. Including suggested evidence, evidence sufficiency criteria, and additional CAEP resources available. Content will reference the evidence sufficiency criteria, handout. Forewarn that they will be asked to reflect on possible evidence sources and should be prepared to take notes. Time for Q&A is scheduled at the end.

Standard 3/A.3’s Holistic Case Providers continuously and purposely recruit, admit, monitor, and recommend towards licensure of candidates from quality educator preparation programs. CAEP Standards for Initial-Licensure/Advanced-Level Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES CONSULT: Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard 3 CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content 2017 SSRs can present plan with progress data Site visits in F18 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in Assessment Sufficiency Criteria  CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments

Standard 3. Candidate Quality and Selectivity The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment [component 3.1], at admission [component 3.2], through the progression of courses and clinical experiences [components 3.3 and 3.4], and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification [components 3.5 and 3.6]. The provider demonstrates that development of candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program. This process is ultimately determined by a program’s meeting of Standard 4.

Rules for Standard 3 General for all Standards Special for Standard 3 All components addressed EPP-Created Assessments at CAEP level of sufficiency At least 3 cycles of data Cycles of data are sequential Disaggregated data on candidates, for main/branch campuses Meeting component 3.2 is required in order to fully meet Standard 3

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.1 The provider presents plans and goals to recruit and support completion of high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields, currently, STEM, English- language learning, and students with disabilities. Consider: What recruitment evidence (plans and goals) do I have that demonstrates attracting diverse candidates to meet identified needs?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.1 PLAN/GOALS TO RECRUIT/SUPPORT HIGH-QUALITY CANDIDATES Recruitment plan with base points and goals including academic ability, diversity, and employment needs Data on applicants, admitted, and enrolled candidates are disaggregated by relevant demographics Evidence that results are recorded, monitored, and used in planning and modification of recruitment strategies Plan and demonstrates knowledge of and addresses employment opportunities in schools, districts, and/or regions

Recruitment Plan Common elements… Introduction and Planning Organization, College, Department, etc… Background of College/Department College/Department Self-Assessment Recruitment of Candidates Develop EPP’s “Message” Develop “How To” Recruit Develop, Schedule, Conduct Orientations Retention of Candidates Assign Support/Supervisor Provide Learning Opportunities of Foundations, Methods, and Clinical Experiences Evaluate Content and Pedagogical Development Provide Academic/non-Academic Resources Transition of Completers Communicate with Completers regularly via surveys, polls, questionnaires, census Recognize professional support, supervisor(s), and resources Managing and Evaluating Design the Evaluation Collect, Organize, and Analyze Data Report Results, Conclusions Reached, and Recommendations Resources

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.2 The provider meets CAEP minimum criteria or the state’s minimum criteria for academic achievement, whichever are higher, and presents disaggregated data on the enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year.

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.2 CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Average scores for group of candidates during in an academic year meet CAEP minimum GPA of 3.0 AND performance on nationally-normed, substantially equivalent state- normed, or EPP administered assessments is in the top 50% for all test takers of the selected assessment Assessments examine candidate performance in mathematical and reading achievement Beginning in 2021 in writing achievement Group average: The GPA and standardized test scores are averaged for all members of a cohort or class of admitted candidates. Averaging does not require that every candidate meet the specified score. Thus, there may be a range of candidates’ grades and scores on standardized tests.

Academic Selection Samples Assessment Test or Section 3.2 Domain—NOTE: proficiency must be met for each domain Group average performance requirements of candidates whose preparation began during the 2016-2017 academic year or earlier ACT “Reading” Reading 21.25 “Math” Math “Writing” Writing 6.60 SAT “Evidence-Based Reading and Writing” 543.33 532.50 “Essay – Writing dimension.” 5.30 Praxis Core 168.06 “Mathematics” 162.14 165 OGET “Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET)” Reading, Math, and Writing 258** CAEP minimum criteria 1) Admissions 2) Prior to program completion  3.0 GPA and is for Initial Standards Performance on a nationally-normed, substantially equivalent state-normed, or EPP administered assessments is in the top 50% for all test takers of the selected assessment

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.3 Educator preparation providers establish and monitor attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability that candidates must demonstrate at admissions and during the program. The provider selects criteria, describes the measures used and evidence of the reliability and validity of those measures, and reports data that show how the academic and non- academic factors predict candidate performance in the program and effective teaching. Consider: What data can I present to demonstrate the other things (besides GPA and test scores) we look for at admissions that result in selecting high quality candidates?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.3 PROVIDERS ESTABLISHES/MONITORS CANDIDATE ATTRIBUTES/DISPOSITIONS, BEYOND ACADEMICS Rationale for established non-academic criteria Makes evidence-based case for the selection and implementation Evidence that EPP monitors candidate progress on established non-academic criteria at multiple points; takes appropriate actions based on results Evidence of association/correlation of non-academic criteria with candidate and completer performance

Non-Academic Samples Admission to Teacher Education Admission to Clinical Experience

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.4 The provider creates criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion. All candidates demonstrate the ability to teach to college- and career-ready standards. Providers present multiple forms of evidence to indicate candidates’ developing content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and the integration of technology in all of these domains Consider: What data can I present to demonstrate that my EPP continues to be selective of candidates throughout our programs?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.4 PROVIDER CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM PROGRESSION/MONITORING OF CANDIDATES Evidence of candidates developing proficiencies in or evidence of developing proficiencies in candidates at 2 or more gateways of progression Ability to teach to college- and career-ready standards Pedagogical/Content knowledge Integration of use of technology Results and stated candidate progressions criteria align with evidence of actions taken such as: Changes in curriculum or clinical experiences Providing interventions/Counseling out

Monitoring Table of Candidates

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.5 Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate has reached a high standard for content knowledge in the fields where certification is sought and can teach effectively with positive impacts on P-12 student learning and development Consider: What data can I present to demonstrate that exit criteria are rigorous?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.5 PROVIDER DEMONSTRATES; CANDIDATES HAVE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN CERTIFICATION FIELD Evidence is the same as that for 1.1 Evidence of effective teaching including positive impacts on P-12 student learning and development for all candidates as noted in Standard 1

EPP Created- Assessments Standard 1, component 1.1 -Clinic Experience/Observation Instruments -Lesson/Unit Plans (Rubrics) -Portfolios -Teacher Work Samples -GPA, Courses Specific P-12 Learner -Dispositional Data -Comparisons of Education and other IHE attendees on provider end-of- major projects -End of Course/Program Assessments -Pre-Service Measures of Candidate Impact -Capstone/Thesis + Proprietary Assessments/Measures + State Assessments/Measures EPP Created- Assessments Initial-Licensure Standards Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments 

Standard 3, Guidance from Component 3.6 Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate understands the expectations of the profession, including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policies. CAEP monitors the development of measures that assess candidates’ success and revises standards in light of new results Consider: What data can I present to document that our candidates understand the professional dos and don’t of teaching?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 3.6 PROVIDER DEMONSTRATES, CANDIDATES UNDERSTAND EXPECTATIONS OF PROFESSION Candidates’ understanding codes of ethics and professional standards of practice Evidence that candidates have knowledge of relevant laws and policies 504 disability provisions, education regulations; bullying, etc.

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 3 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MAY BE CITED WHEN: Case: There is limited or no evidence that the EPP makes appropriate use of non-academic measures There is limited or no attempt to measure candidate impact on P-12 student learning during pre-service preparation EPP provides limited or no evidence of candidate understanding of the profession

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 3 STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN: Case: There is limited or no evidence that the EPP monitors candidate progress during preparation There is no credible recruitment plan e.g., no actual data on employment of previous completers, no year by year schedules of recruitment goals in relation to available employment opportunities; no forecasts of employment needs for STEM, ELL, special education or hard-to-staff schools The EPP evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” admissions criteria

STANDARD A.3 CANDIDATE QUALITY AND SELECTIVITY

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES CONSULT: Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard A.3 CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content F18 –S19 SSRs can present a plan for Components A.3.1, A.3.2, and/or A.3.3 Plan with progress can be submitted in SSRs until 2020-2021 Site visits in F22 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in Assessment Sufficiency Criteria  CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments We will look at each of these resources and practice applying them to prospective evidence. The process of building a case that Standard 4 is met can begin with a review of the quality sufficiency of each measure currently in use and how they can combine to create a well-balanced set that speaks to the evidence sufficiency criteria. This would be followed by an exploration of how to best fill any gaps. Or, building a case can begin with a review of the evidence sufficiency criteria, followed by taking inventory of available evidence that meets sufficiency criteria for assessments, then by an exploration of how to best fill any gaps. Since EPPs are conducting assessments that are more for operational purposes than accreditation purposes, begin by looking at the evidence sufficiency criteria to see where existing sources can serve dual purposes. The Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments is a general tool for thinking about the quality of individual instruments. The Evidence Evaluation Exercise is more directly tied to the evidence quality factors discussed in Component A.5.2. It is also more tailored to evaluating evidence for particular standards or components, whether EPP created or not. This tool can be applied to individual measures or to sets of evidence, and provides a way to document that the whole is more than the sum of its parts or what gaps remain even after the strengths of multiple sources are combined. This can allow for a much more focused approach to selecting additional evidence.

STANDARD A.3: CANDIDATE QUALITY AND SELECTIVITY The provider demonstrates that the quality of advanced program candidates [components A.3.1 and A.3.2] is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility [component A.3.3] so that completers are prepared to perform effectively and can be recommended for certification where applicable [component A.3.4].

Rules for Standard A.3 General for all Standards Special for Standard A.3 Key concepts in standard and components are addressed At least three cycles of data that are sequential and most recent available Admission statistics are disaggregated by academic year Also for main and additional campuses, on site and online programs (as applicable) Data/evidence analysis includes discussion of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences. EPP-created assessments (if any) meet CAEP assessment sufficiency criteria Component 3.2 must be met for Standard A.3 to be considered met Phase-in Plans for A.3.1, A.3.2, and/or A.3.3 meet the criteria for the CAEP Guidelines for Plans and are consistent with the Phase-In Schedule Site visits between F18 and S22 can present plan along with progress data Site visits in F22 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in

Standard A.3, Guidance from Component A.3.1 The provider sets goals and monitors progress for admission and support of high-quality advanced program candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s teacher pool and, over time, should reflect the diversity of P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for school and district staff prepared in advanced fields. Consider: What recruitment evidence (plans and goals) do I have that demonstrate to base points and annual monitoring?

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA, A.3.1 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Demonstrates knowledge of employment opportunities in schools, districts, and/or regions where completers are likely to seek employment and documents the influence of employment opportunities on enrollment patterns Written plan for continuously improving the admitted candidate pool provides base points and annual monitoring of characteristics related to academic ability, diversity, and employment needs. Admission goals and enrollment data demonstrate annual progress from the base point and have moved the provider toward greater candidate diversity and academic achievement. Standard A.3 Sufficiency Criteria:

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: ADMISSION OF DIVERSE CANDIDATES WHO MEET EMPLOYMENT NEEDS Proof that the EPP periodically examines the employment landscape in the community, state, regional, or national market for which EPP’s are preparing completers e.g., shortage areas, job openings, job forecasts, and related information Admission Plan showing that labor market information is considered during goal setting Documentation from admission reviews showing that the EPP monitors annual progress toward admission goals e.g., for high-need specialty areas, locality, gender, ethnicity, academic ability, etc. Hiring and/or retention rates that show the majority of completers fulfill an employment need in a P-12 setting. Proof that the provider periodically examines the employment landscape – shortage areas, openings, forecasts, and related information – in the community, state, regional, or national market for which EPP’s are preparing completers. Documentation from admission reviews illustrating that the EPP monitors annual progress toward admission goals such as for gender, ethnicity, academic ability, and/or high-need specialty areas.

Standard A.3, Guidance from Component A.3.2 REQUIRED COMPONENT: The provider sets admissions requirements for academic achievement, including CAEP minimum criteria, the state’s minimum criteria, or graduate school minimum criteria, whichever is highest, and gathers data to monitor candidates from admission to completion. The provider determines additional criteria intended to ensure that candidates have, or develop, abilities to complete the program successfully and arranges appropriate support and counseling for candidates whose progress falls behind.

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA, A.3.2 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Specifies EPP’s requirements for prior academic achievement and other criteria it uses at an entry to assess potential to succeed. These criteria comply with minimum requirements of the EPP’s governing body (e.g., IHE, state education department). Disaggregated data on admissions metrics meet the CAEP minimum for GPA (≥3.0 average) or test performance (≥50th percentile). Standard A.3 Sufficiency Criteria:

Academic Selection Samples CAEP minimum criteria 1) Admissions 2) Prior to program completion  3.0 GPA or is for Advanced Standards Performance on a nationally-normed, substantially equivalent state-normed, or EPP administered assessments is in the top 50% for all test takers of the selected assessment Licensure examinations Additional measures utilized toward compliance of other accreditors (e.g., for reporting requirements; WASC, NASC, HLC (aka NCA), SACS, MSA, NEASC) Other Assessment Test or Section 3.2 Domain—NOTE: proficiency must be met for each domain Group average performance requirements of candidates whose preparation began during the 2016-2017 academic year or earlier GRE “Verbal Reasoning” Reading 150.75** “Quantitative Reasoning” Math 152.75** “Analytical Writing” Writing 3.74**

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND ABILITY TO COMPLETE PREPARATION SUCCESSFULLY Documentation on: Admission criteria for GPA and results of GPA analysis Admission criteria for normed tests and results of rank analyses EPP criteria created for interviews or other admission procedures together with results Performance on qualifying exams Assessments of writing ability Documentation illustrating that the EPP sets goals for candidate support and monitors progress toward goals e.g., provisions for targeted assistance, remediation, etc. Providers set admission requirements that include the CAEP minimum criteria, described in component A.3.2, but also including their own criteria “intended to ensure that candidates have, or develop, abilities to complete the program successfully.”   Examples might include the following: Admission criteria for GPA and results Admission criteria for normed tests and results EPP criteria created for interviews or other admission procedures together with results Performance on qualifying exams Assessments of writing ability Evidence for components A.3.1 and A.3.2 might also include documentation from performance reviews, remediation efforts, and/or provisions illustrating that the EPP sets goals for candidate support and monitors progress toward goals of providing sufficient support to candidates to facilitate successful program completion.

Standard A.3, Guidance from Component A.3.3 The provider creates criteria for program progression and uses disaggregated data to monitor candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion Consider: What data can I present to demonstrate at exit the proficiencies of completing candidates?

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA, A.3.3 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Documents how often and when the EPP monitors candidate performance At two or more points after admission For each specialty area and for individual candidates Documents outline the criteria for satisfactory progress at each monitoring point and results showing attainment rates Disaggregated by specialty area Outlines the supporting services available to assist advanced program candidates to complete their program, including information provided to candidates on how to access services. Documents the types of services/support that advanced candidates – particularly those that were struggling at progress checkpoints – have accessed and/or the types of interventions the EPP initiated Standard A.3 Sufficiency Criteria:

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: SELECTIVITY DURING PREPARATION Chart mapping assessments to key points during the program (e.g., specific phases/stages, checkpoints) and expected performance level to proceed (e.g., cut score) Content knowledge Practical application, field work Dispositions assessments Demonstration of candidates evolving/expanding technology integration into practice Assessments used at key points during the program (e.g., phases/stages, checkpoints) Content knowledge and dispositions assessments; these could be administered serially (in any order) or in parallel Demonstration of evolving technology integration into practice; this could be assessed repeatedly with the same tasks and criteria for competence, or with different tasks or criteria at different points in the program.

Standard A.3, Guidance from Component A.3.4 Before the provider recommends any advanced program candidate for completion, it documents that the candidate has reached a high standard for content knowledge in the field of specialization, data literacy and research-driven decision making, effective use of collaborative skills, applications of technology, and applications of dispositions, laws, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate for the field of specialization. Consider: What evidence do you have that would demonstrate that each candidate who is awarded the specialty degree has achieved the set of proficiencies expected at exit?

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY CRITERIA, A.3.4 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Documents that each candidate that the program recommended for the specialty area credential passed all of the progress monitoring checkpoints or remediated all deficiencies by the final checkpoint Documents that the knowledge, skills, and dispositions listed in A.1 are key to program completion, particularly Content knowledge in the field of specialization Data literacy and research-driven decision making Effective use of collaborative skills Applications of technology Applications of dispositions, laws, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate for the field of specialization Standard A.3 Sufficiency Criteria:

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: SELECTION AT COMPLETION Checklist for completion requirements that includes performance metrics and candidate’s results: e.g., graduation requirements, licensure requirements, specific skills, types of authentic problem-based experiences Curriculum and state measures of topic knowledge on special education laws, codes of ethics, professional standards EPP-created dispositional/ethics assessments The EPP should ensure that candidates at exit have opportunities to demonstrate that they can perform effectively on tasks that are representative of those they might perform in their field of specialization after employment.   Examples might include the following: Curriculum and state measures of topic knowledge on special education laws, codes of ethics, or professional standards Authentic problem-based experience Dispositional/ethics assessments.

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.3 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (AFIs) MAY BE CITED WHEN Instrument Quality is Poor: EPP-created assessments used to collect Standard A.3 data (if any) have significant deficiencies with respect to CAEP’s assessment evaluation framework Phase-In Plans for one or more components do not meet CAEP’s guidelines for plans Evidence Quantity is Limited: Less than three cycles of data are provided Less than one cycle of phase-in data collected by academic year 2019/2020 Site visitors may recommend AFIs or stipulations if general rules, special rules, or specific evidence sufficiency criteria are not met. Only the Accreditation Council can decide if AFIs or stipulations will be cited or whether standards are met or not met. The following slides are intended to clarify some of the conditions under which this has happened in the past may or in the future.

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.3 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (AFIs) MAY BE CITED WHEN Case is Weak: No rationale for admission requirements for academic and non-academic criteria that connects the criteria to qualities of successful completers No evidence that EPP monitors advanced candidates’ progress at two or more points after admission No evidence that EPP provides supporting services and counseling for candidates when needed One or more of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.3 do not meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. For example, under Timeline, the plan will not result in at least one data point in the academic year 2019-2020 An Area for Improvement (AFI) is recommended when: The provider does not provide a rationale for its admission requirements for academic and non-academic criteria that connect the criteria to qualities of successful completers. The provider has a high attrition rate among candidates for whom admission requirements were relaxed. The EPP did not provide evidence that it monitors advanced candidates’ progress at two or more points after admission. The EPP did not provide evidence that it provides supporting services and counseling for candidates when needed. One or more of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.3 do not meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. For example, under Timeline, the plan will not result in at least one data point in the academic year 2019-2020. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines].  

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.3 STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN Evidence Quality is Low Significant aspects/key language of the standard and components are not addressed by relevant measures Evidence Quantity is Limited: The EPP does not provide three cycles of admissions data Limited or no evidence for Standard A.1, and (when eligible) no phase-in plan for A.1.1 that meets CAEP’s Guidelines for Plans and phase-in schedule Results are not disaggregated by admission year for specialty area The Accreditation Handbook provides additional detail on evidence issues that may lead to AFIs and stipulations A Stipulation is recommended when: The provider did not address significant aspects of the standard using relevant measures. The provider did not specify its admission requirements for prior academic achievement and non-academic criteria. The EPP did not provide three cycles of admissions data The provider did not disaggregate data on admissions data by admission year for each specialty area. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the minimum requirements of the EPP’s governing body. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” criterion for GPA or test performance. [Component 3.2 is not met] Efforts by the site team to verify the reported results reveal inaccuracies significant enough to a different conclusion regarding whether the CAEP minima are met. [This may be cited in Standard 5 if a problem in the QAS is the cause.] The provider did not provide an admission plan with baseline data and a monitoring plan for tracking progress toward goals of greater academic achievement, candidate diversity, and fulfillment of needs in the P-12 labor market for advanced specialties. The provider admits candidates to the program who do not meet employment requirements evident in employment trend data and does not provide evidence that it offers supports to help those candidates meet the requirements or evidence that admitted candidates were notified of potential employability issues before enrolling in the program. The EPP did not provide evidence that it reviews candidate progress at least once between admission and program completion. Evidence from progress monitoring combined with outcomes reported in Standard A.1 indicates that the EPP recommends advanced program candidates for specialty area credentials although they do not meet the knowledge and performance criteria. None of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.4 meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines]. Phase-in Plans are submitted for Standard A.3 after the expiration of the period for submitting new plans. Progress on Phase-in Plans for Standard A.3 does not include any results. Results submitted to demonstrate progress on Phase-In Plans for Standard A.3 show inadequate levels of satisfaction for the majority of completers or employers who responded.

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.3 STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN Case is Weak The provider does not specify its admission requirements for prior academic achievement and non-academic criteria. No admission plan with baseline data and a monitoring plan for tracking progress toward goals of greater academic achievement, candidate diversity, and fulfillment of needs in the P-12 labor market for advanced specialties. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” criterion for GPA or test performance. [Component A.3.2 is not met] Inaccuracies in data analysis/results lead to erroneous conclusion by EPP that CAEP minima are met EPP admits or graduates candidates who are not eligible for employment in the specialty area and does not provide evidence that it supports candidates to meet the requirements or evidence that admitted candidates were notified of potential employability issues before enrolling in the program. The Accreditation Handbook provides additional detail on evidence issues that may lead to AFIs and stipulations. A Stipulation is recommended when: The provider did not address significant aspects of the standard using relevant measures. The provider did not specify its admission requirements for prior academic achievement and non-academic criteria. The EPP did not provide three cycles of admissions data The provider did not disaggregate data on admissions data by admission year for each specialty area. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the minimum requirements of the EPP’s governing body. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” criterion for GPA or test performance. [Component 3.2 is not met] Efforts by the site team to verify the reported results reveal inaccuracies significant enough to a different conclusion regarding whether the CAEP minima are met. [This may be cited in Standard 5 if a problem in the QAS is the cause.] The provider did not provide an admission plan with baseline data and a monitoring plan for tracking progress toward goals of greater academic achievement, candidate diversity, and fulfillment of needs in the P-12 labor market for advanced specialties. The provider admits candidates to the program who do not meet employment requirements evident in employment trend data and does not provide evidence that it offers supports to help those candidates meet the requirements or evidence that admitted candidates were notified of potential employability issues before enrolling in the program. The EPP did not provide evidence that it reviews candidate progress at least once between admission and program completion. Evidence from progress monitoring combined with outcomes reported in Standard A.1 indicates that the EPP recommends advanced program candidates for specialty area credentials although they do not meet the knowledge and performance criteria. None of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.4 meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines]. Phase-in Plans are submitted for Standard A.3 after the expiration of the period for submitting new plans. Progress on Phase-in Plans for Standard A.3 does not include any results. Results submitted to demonstrate progress on Phase-In Plans for Standard A.3 show inadequate levels of satisfaction for the majority of completers or employers who responded.

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.3 STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN Case is Weak No evidence that EPP reviews candidate progress at least once between admission and program completion EPP recommends advanced program candidates for specialty area credentials although they do not meet knowledge and performance criteria in Standard A.1 or progress monitoring criteria The Accreditation Handbook provides additional detail on evidence issues that may lead to AFIs and stipulations. A Stipulation is recommended when: The provider did not address significant aspects of the standard using relevant measures. The provider did not specify its admission requirements for prior academic achievement and non-academic criteria. The EPP did not provide three cycles of admissions data The provider did not disaggregate data on admissions data by admission year for each specialty area. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the minimum requirements of the EPP’s governing body. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” criterion for GPA or test performance. [Component 3.2 is not met] Efforts by the site team to verify the reported results reveal inaccuracies significant enough to a different conclusion regarding whether the CAEP minima are met. [This may be cited in Standard 5 if a problem in the QAS is the cause.] The provider did not provide an admission plan with baseline data and a monitoring plan for tracking progress toward goals of greater academic achievement, candidate diversity, and fulfillment of needs in the P-12 labor market for advanced specialties. The provider admits candidates to the program who do not meet employment requirements evident in employment trend data and does not provide evidence that it offers supports to help those candidates meet the requirements or evidence that admitted candidates were notified of potential employability issues before enrolling in the program. The EPP did not provide evidence that it reviews candidate progress at least once between admission and program completion. Evidence from progress monitoring combined with outcomes reported in Standard A.1 indicates that the EPP recommends advanced program candidates for specialty area credentials although they do not meet the knowledge and performance criteria. None of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.4 meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines]. Phase-in Plans are submitted for Standard A.3 after the expiration of the period for submitting new plans. Progress on Phase-in Plans for Standard A.3 does not include any results. Results submitted to demonstrate progress on Phase-In Plans for Standard A.3 show inadequate levels of satisfaction for the majority of completers or employers who responded.

Cross-Cutting Themes Embedded in Every Aspect of Educator Preparation Coursework Diversity Technology Fieldwork Interpersonal Interactions

Cross-Cutting Themes of Diversity and Technology Places in which the cross-cutting themes of diversity and technology must be explicitly addressed through evidence are identified by the following icons in the CAEP Evidence Table. = diversity and = technology

Themes of Diversity and Technology Standard 3 Providers are committed to outreach efforts to recruit a more able and diverse candidate pool. Technology Standard 3 Candidates integrate technology into all learning domains.

Themes of Diversity and Technology Standard A.3 Providers are committed to outreach efforts to recruit a more able and diverse pool of advanced program candidates. The diversity of advanced candidates reflects the diversity of America’s teacher pool, and over time, should reflect the diversity of P-12 students. EPPs monitor disaggregated evidence of academic quality and candidate progress, provided support for candidates who need it. Technology Standard A.3 Candidates can apply technology in appropriate ways to their field of specialization.

In Summary - The Case for Standard 3/A.3 Information is provided from several sources and provides evidence of shared decision-making, collaboration among clinical faculty, and continuous functioning. Data are analyzed. Differences and similarities across licensure/field areas, comparisons over time, and demographical data are examined in relation to components 3.1 and 3.2 (recruitment and admissions), as appropriate. Appropriate interpretations and conclusions are reached. Trends or patterns are identified that suggest need for preparation modification. Based on the analysis of data, there are planned or completed actions for change that are described. The Accreditation Handbook provides additional detail on evidence issues that may lead to AFIs and stipulations. A Stipulation is recommended when: The provider did not address significant aspects of the standard using relevant measures. The provider did not specify its admission requirements for prior academic achievement and non-academic criteria. The EPP did not provide three cycles of admissions data The provider did not disaggregate data on admissions data by admission year for each specialty area. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the minimum requirements of the EPP’s governing body. The EPP admissions evidence falls below the “CAEP minimum” criterion for GPA or test performance. [Component 3.2 is not met] Efforts by the site team to verify the reported results reveal inaccuracies significant enough to a different conclusion regarding whether the CAEP minima are met. [This may be cited in Standard 5 if a problem in the QAS is the cause.] The provider did not provide an admission plan with baseline data and a monitoring plan for tracking progress toward goals of greater academic achievement, candidate diversity, and fulfillment of needs in the P-12 labor market for advanced specialties. The provider admits candidates to the program who do not meet employment requirements evident in employment trend data and does not provide evidence that it offers supports to help those candidates meet the requirements or evidence that admitted candidates were notified of potential employability issues before enrolling in the program. The EPP did not provide evidence that it reviews candidate progress at least once between admission and program completion. Evidence from progress monitoring combined with outcomes reported in Standard A.1 indicates that the EPP recommends advanced program candidates for specialty area credentials although they do not meet the knowledge and performance criteria. None of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.4 meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines]. Phase-in Plans are submitted for Standard A.3 after the expiration of the period for submitting new plans. Progress on Phase-in Plans for Standard A.3 does not include any results. Results submitted to demonstrate progress on Phase-In Plans for Standard A.3 show inadequate levels of satisfaction for the majority of completers or employers who responded.