Office of Field and Clinical Partnerships and Outreach: Updates Visiting district offices, schools, program areas, clinical faculty Partnership Model working group Advisory Board New Teacher Evaluation Rubrics Website Placements Certification Data collection

September 29-October 1 Washington, DC CAEPcon September 29-October 1 Washington, DC

From NCATE to CAEP – Observations, Differences, Opportunities More autonomy - methodologically Substantive evidence vs. superficial evidence Data literacy very important Advanced standards not finalized

The Standards Standard 1 – Pedagogical Content Knowledge Standard 2 – Clinical Partnerships & Practice Standard 3 – Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity Standard 4 – Program Impact Standard 5 – Quality Assurance Plan & Continuous Improvement

Initial vs. Advanced Standard Number of initial Components Number of Advanced Components 1 5 2 3 6 4

CAEP Process & Timeline EPPs submit a self study report about 8 months before on-site visit. The report is thin on narrative and thick on evidence Once submitted, the review team will engage in an iterative process of asking questions and seeking clarification. The more questions answered during that time period, the fewer surprises when they come to campus

Key Takeaways With respect to teacher preparation, we are in very good shape (much better than a lot of other school/college/departments) Dispositions are huge Need to overhaul our surveys, add in an admissions survey, and align surveys so the data are usable and comparable across all stakeholders

Key Takeaways Standard 4 – Program Impact – What impact do our graduates have on their students – must meet all sub-standards or no accreditation. Standards 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 – surveys, that are well-aligned and informative, can constitute our evidence Standard 4.1 is the issue – need actual student learning outcome data. Can use whatever methodology we want 10% purposeful sample – We can decide how and why we define purposeful

Standard 4: 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 4.2 What evidence (other than measures of P-12 student learning) do I have that would demonstrate inservice graduates are effective teachers? 4.3 What evidence do we have that would demonstrate that employers are satisfied with our program graduates once hired? 4.4 What evidence do we have that would demonstrate our program graduates are satisfied now that they have been hired and are on-the- job?

Calling all qualitative methodologists… Standard 4.1 What evidence do we have that would demonstrate graduates’ impact on P-12 student learning? What research methodologies could we feasibly employ to gain such information? The EPP creates data similar to state data in conjunction with student assessment and teacher evaluations conducted in school districts where some portion of its completers are employed

Advanced Programs If you feel your advanced program should be exempt from CAEP review, must complete form and submit: Intent of the advanced program is to develop P-12 teachers or other school professionals for employment in P-12 Schools/Districts Over 50% of the enrollees in the program are teachers or other school professionals in P-12 schools/districts Ay M.Ed; M.S; M.A.; Ed.D; or Ph.D. Program specific to P-12 schools districts. Advanced level program that are designed to further the knowledge and skills of P-12 and/or other school professionals such as curriculum and instruction, educational technology, etc.* Any track, endorsement, or “add on” program

Advanced programs GRE may no longer be required for admission “The CAEP minimum criteria are a college gpa of 3.0 OR a group average performance on nationally normed assessments, or substantially equivalent state-normed or EPP administered assessments of mathematical, verbal, and written achievement in the top 50 percent of those assessed” An EPP may develop and use a valid and reliable substantially equivalent alternative assessment of academic achievement. The 50th percentile standard for writing will be implemented in 2021. The CAEP minimum criteria apply to the group average of enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year.”

Advanced Programs, cont. EDL requires two internships in separate settings. If there is no way to meet this requirement (2.2) email CAEP as the rubrics are still in draft form. Data Literacy important to Advanced Programs.

Feedback on Advanced Standards Advanced Standards still in draft form. Comments can be sent to: Glenda.Breaux@caepnet.org Tatiana.rivadeneyra@caepnet.org http://www.caepnet.org/standards/standards-advanced-programs

Partnerships-Field Experiences Partnership Model Co-constructed mutually beneficial relationship Shared responsibility for students Diverse settings Selection of cooperating teachers Joint curriculum/ professional development (some online) Technology Coherence between coursework and practicum/student teaching

Data Collection Reiterate that we are in good shape. We just need to find a way to document our good work. This is one example that was shared. Can also reorganize chart to collect data per course.

Quality Assurance System We are in good shape, we just need to document our system: State Goals Document and record evidence Document how candidates perform over time Clearly define how effective is effective enough Stakeholders must participate in the process Review, readjust, review, readjust, etc.

Resources CAEPcon presentations: http://caepnet.org/about/2016-fall-caepcon