STANDARD 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org  Banhi Bhattacharya, Ph.D. Accreditation Director Senior Director of Program Review Banhi.Bhattacharya@caepnet.org  TR

Session Overview This session focuses on the key language and intent of CAEP Standard 1for Initial-licensure. Content references the evidence sufficiency criteria handout. The Advanced-level standards are not covered in this presentation.   Please attend the session dedicated to those standards or access the presentation materials for guidance. 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.

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES CONSULT:  Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard 2 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

Evidence Sufficiency Rules for Standard 1 General for all Standards Special for Standard 1 Key concepts in standard and components are addressed EPP-created assessments meet CAEP’s assessment sufficiency criteria At least three cycles of data that are sequential and most recent available Results disaggregated by specialty field area (when appropriate) Also for main and additional campuses, on site and online programs (if applicable) Data/evidence analysis includes discussion of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences. No required components All data disaggregated by specialty licensure area Evidence from Standard 1 cited in support of continuous improvement, part of overall review system

Standard 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline [components 1.1, 1.3] and, by completion, can use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards [component 1.4].

Component 1.1 – Key Language 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. Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate developing an understanding over time in these four categories?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.1 CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE UNDERSTANDING OF 10 InTASC STANDARDS All four of the InTASC categories are addressed with multiple indicators across the four categories Multiple indicators/measures specific to application of content knowledge in clinical settings are identified Data/evidence are analyzed including identification of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences Averages at/above acceptable levels on EPP’s scoring indicators, on InTASC standards (categories) If applicable, demonstrate candidates’ performance is comparable to non-candidates’ performance in same courses or majors Performances indicate competency and benchmarked against the average licensure area performance of other providers Interpretations and conclusions are supported by data/evidence

EPP Created- Assessments Standard 1, component 1.1 -Clinical Experience/Observation Instruments -Lesson/Unit Plans -Portfolios -Teacher Work Samples -GPA, Courses Specific to 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 Standards (suggested evidence) Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments 

Component 1.2 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates 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. Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate using research and assessment (evidence) for student and professional learning?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.2 CANDIDATES USE RESEARCH/EVIDENCE TOWARD TEACHING PROFESSION Data/evidence document effective candidate use of: Research/evidence for planning, implementing, and evaluating students’ progress Data to reflect on teaching effectiveness and own practice Data to assess P-12 student progress and then modify instruction based on student data

Component 1.3 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM). Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate the application of content knowledge and in response to other professional standards?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.3 CANDIDATES APPLY CONTENT/PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE; IN RESPONSE TO SPAs Licensure area questions are completed/supported by analysis/accurate interpretations of specialty licensure area data Note: The Specialty Licensure Area Questions are: How have the results of specialty licensure area or SPA evidence been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes? What has been learned about different specialty licensure areas as a result of the review of the disaggregated data? How does the specialty licensure area data provide evidence for meeting the state-selected standards? How is specialty licensure area evidence aligned with the identified state standards?

PROGRAM REVIEW and THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS STandard 1, component 1.3

VOCABULARY  EPP: Educator Preparation Provider that prepares professionals in various licensure or certification areas to serve in a P-12 setting PROGRAM: A planned sequence of academic courses and experiences leading to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, or some other credential that entitles the holder to perform professional education services in schools (P-12) CANDIDATES: Pre-service educators STUDENTS: P-12 students SPA: Specialized professional associations SPA Program Report: A report submitted at a program level to provide evidence to meet standards developed by SPAs SPA RECOGNITION REPORT/DECISION REPORT: Report providing SPA feedback and recognition decision– used as partial evidence for CAEP Standard 1 BB

PROGRAM REVIEW: INTEGRAL TO CAEP ACCREDITATION (Initial-Level Certification) Program review decisions factor into CAEP Standard 1, component 1.3, which says: “Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).” BB

CAEP SCOPE AND PROGRAM REVIEW CAEP accredits EPPs EPP-offered programs leading to licensing degrees, certificates, or endorsements of P-12 professionals fall under the scope Programs accredited by other national accrediting bodies (CACREP, NASM, etc.): EPP may choose to exempt from review by CAEP (will not be recognized as accredited by CAEP) EPP may choose to include in the CAEP accreditation process (will be included in EPP-wide assessments, annual report, and program review)

PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS CAEP-state agreements determine program review options for EPPs within state (28 agreements signed to date) Available program review options for EPPs in states with agreements: SPA review with National Recognition (3 years prior to site visit) CAEP program review with feedback (part of self-study report) State review of programs (determined by state) Available program review options for EPPs in states without agreements: State review of programs (EPP coordinates with state to obtain and provide state agency report) BB

EXAMPLES: STATE-SELECTED PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS* SPA REVIEW REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK STATE REVIEW ARKANSAS X DELAWARE - INDIANA KANSAS NEW JERSEY * Information on program review options by state is available on the CAEP website: http://caepnet.org/working-together/state-partners/state-partnership-agreements

QUESTIONS THAT PROGRAM REVIEW ADDRESSES What degree of competence in content knowledge do candidates demonstrate? Can candidates successfully develop a conceptual plan for their teaching and other professional education responsibilities? Can candidates implement their conceptual plan with students and colleagues? Are candidates effective in promoting student learning? Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?

PRESENTING PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE FOR CAEP ACCREDITATION CONSIDER: 1. Did the EPP update the program review option in AIMS for each program? 2. Does the program list match the licensure, certification, or endorsement programs list on the EPP’s catalog? 3. Does the selection of program review option meet CAEP state agreement (if applicable)? 4. Does the program level evidence (SPA report, state agency report, self-study addendum) presented on the self-study report match the selected review option? Remember: 1 licensing program = 1 review option  evidence type

SPA PROGRAM REVIEW OPTION WITH NATIONAL RECOGNITION Two Steps in CAEP Accreditation Process if Selecting SPA Review Option: Step #1: Initial review report submitted to SPA three years prior to site visit (Program level review) Example: Site Visit in Fall 2020  Initial SPA review in Fall 2017 Step #2: Self-study report submitted to CAEP nine months prior to site visit (Provider level review) Example: Site Visit in Nov. 2020  Self-Study report in Mar. 2020 BB

SPA REVIEW EXPECTATIONS: WHAT THE SITE TEAM WILL LOOK FOR INITIAL REVIEW DUE DATE: 3 years prior to site visit Example: site visit in Fall 2020  initial SPA review in Fall 2017 SPA reports initiated more than three years before = old data Did the EPP receive an extension to account for older Recognition Reports?

PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: SPA REVIEW What evidence will the site team look for? A SPA Recognition/Decision Report 3 year-out timing of Initial Review: “All Programs”  Review by” column  …(history) How will the site team determine if CAEP expectations are met when an EPP selects the SPA option? Minimum sufficiency criteria: 51% of the total number of programs selecting SPA review option have full National Recognition from a 3 year out submission Which SPA recommendations on the Decision Report will be used? Comments in Part E (Areas for consideration) Comments in Part F (Additional comments) SPA decisions or conditions for the program to address in Part G

SPA REVIEW: TIMING AND CYCLES PURPOSE: Gather evidence for current accreditation cycle (CAEP Standard 1) Initiate process to receive full National Recognition by visit date Initiate process to continue prior National Recognition status before expiration REVIEW CYCLES: 2 times per year Spring Cycle Due Date: March 15 Fall Cycle Due Date: September 15 Spring Cycle Decisions: August 1 Fall Cycle Decisions: February 1

STAGES OF SPA REVIEW PROCESS INITIAL SUBMISSION: 3 years before site visit SHELL REQUESTS BEGIN: 1 year before submission date SHELL REQUESTS ENDS (moving forward): 5 days before submission date (March 10 for spring cycle and September 10 for fall cycle) SHELL REQUEST SUBMISSION: List all programs preparing P-12 professionals in each specialization area in AIMS to enable shell request submission Submit shell requests through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS): http://aims.caepnet.org/AIMS_login.asp) Directions requesting shells provided on CAEP website: http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-program-review-policies- and-procedur CAEP staff creates shells after receiving request

SPA REVIEW: DISCUSSION ON SELF-STUDY REPORT The EPP addresses the following questions for programs selecting SPA Program Review: How was the SPA feedback on specialty licensure area used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes? What was learned about different specialty licensure areas as a result of the review of the disaggregated data? What trends do the comparison of data across specialty licensure areas indicate and how do they provide evidence for meeting the CAEP and state expectations and standards?  Accreditation Decision: Evidence meets CAEP sufficiency criteria, OR, evidence indicates potential area for improvement (AFI) 21

PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK What is CAEP Review with Feedback? An alternative option to SPA and state review Requires evidence of candidates’ knowledge of content and pedagogical content knowledge for each licensure area program How do programs report evidence for this option? Incorporate evidence as part of the self-study report Analyze data from state licensure exams and/or other proficiency measures required by EPP to demonstrate candidates’ content knowledge in the licensure area Analyze data to demonstrate candidates’ pedagogical knowledge in the area Analyze data from assessment of candidates’ impact on student learning in the area Provide assessment description and scoring guide in each case 22

PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK (Cont’d) How do programs report evidence for this option ? Address the following questions for each assessment: What artifact(s) is used to provide evidence? How was the assessment developed? How does the assessment provide evidence for meeting standards (next slide)? How is the quality of the assessment/evidence determined or assured? What criteria of success were established or measured, and how? Refer to the Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback: http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/program-review-options/caep-program- review-with-feedback 23

Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback 24

Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback 25

PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK What standards are used for this option? As a norm, align the assessments for Initial-Level Programs with the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards on content and pedagogy Standard 4 (Content Knowledge), Standard 5 (Application of Content), Standard 6 (Assessment), Standard 7 (Planning for Instruction), and Standard 8 (Instructional Strategies) If a state requires use of other standards for the CAEP Program Review with Feedback option (state agreement), EPP will align evidence to those standards 26

CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK OPTION: TIMING AND PURPOSE EVIDENCE SUBMISSION: Included as part of self-study report REVIEWED BY: site team PURPOSE:  Gather program level evidence for current accreditation cycle  Provide evidence for CAEP standard 1 (Initial-Licensure Program)  Receive formative feedback on meeting CAEP Standard 1  Feedback used by CAEP’s Accreditation Council to make accreditation decisions Feedback may be used by states to understand if program meets state expectations 27

CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK OPTION: GENERAL EXPECTATIONS 3 cycles of data submitted and analyzed as part of self-study report Disaggregated data provided on candidates enrolled for main and branch campuses Cycles of data must be sequential and latest available The review is based on guidance provided in the CAEP Evidence Guide

PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION ON SELF-STUDY REPORT The EPP addresses the following questions for programs selecting the Program Review with Feedback Option: Based on the analyses of the disaggregated data, how are the results of specialty licensure area evidence used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes? Based on the analyses of specialty licensure area data, how have individual licensure areas used data as the basis for change? How do the specialty licensure area data align with and provide evidence for meeting the state-selected (or InTASC) standards? 29

Component 1.4 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college- and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards). Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate skills and commitment to access for all students?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.4 CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE TO COLLEGE-AND-CAREER-READY STANDARDS  Multiple indicators/measures specific to evaluating proficiencies for candidate’s ability to  Provide effective instruction for all students (differentiation of instruction) Have students apply knowledge to solve problems and think critically Include cross-discipline learning experiences and to teach for transfer of skills Design and implement learning experiences that require collaboration and communication skills

Standard 1,component 1.4 Suggested Evidence Evidence specific to college- and career-readiness Plans, assignments, and observational data demonstrate candidates’ skills for Deep content knowledge Eliciting P-12 student application of their knowledge to solve problems and think critically Cross-discipline teaching Differentiating instruction Identifying and interpreting assessments to match P-12 college- and career-readiness goals/objective

Standard 1, component 1.5 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice. Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate modeling and application of technology skills to enhance learning for students and self?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.5 CANDIDATES MODEL AND APPLY TECHNOLOGY Candidates demonstrate: Knowledge and skill proficiencies including accessing databases, digital media, and/or electronic sources The ability to design and facilitate digital learning The ability to track and share student performance data digitally

Standard 1, component 1.5, Technology… Design Analysis of Learning and Teaching Facilitate Planning for Integration of Instructional Technology Evaluate Post-Instruction Evaluation and Review

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 1 AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MAY BE CITED WHEN: Evidence: Lack of direct evidence for effective teaching of diverse P-12 students Lack of evidence of candidate modeling and applying technology Case: One or more of the four InTASC categories is not informed by EPP evidence, or disaggregated data Average candidate scores fall below acceptable levels on EPP-created scoring indicators, specific to InTASC categories Limited or no attempt to measure candidate data literacy Instrumentation: Only state-required licensure tests are provided as evidence

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 1 STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN: Evidence: Disaggregated evidence for each preparation program Licensure test scores in the upper half of national median/average field by field or the upper half of state median/average field by field No plan for the EPP to improve its performance to be in the upper half Case: Limited or no evidence and no plan for evidence of college- and career- readiness levels of instruction

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 Tables. = diversity and = technology

Themes of Diversity and Technology Standard 1 Candidates must demonstrate skills and commitment that provide all P-12 students access to rigorous college and career ready standards. Technology Standard 1 Endorses InTASC teacher standards. Providers are to “…ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improving learning and enrich professional practice.”