NYSATE/NYCATE FallCon: CAEP Accreditation Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director, Site Visitor Development and EPP Accreditation Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org 202.753.1653 Direct  

Goals and Objectives Hear about the latest developments at CAEP Share the steps of the uniform CAEP accreditation process Discuss preparing for CAEP accreditation and addressing CAEP standards

CAEP ACCREDITATION PROCESS CAEP’s goal is to develop and implement a uniform process for accreditation focused on accountability and continuous improvement. This CAEP Accreditation process is rigorous and high quality, fair, clearly communicated, applied consistently, and managed by a CAEP team of knowledgeable and effective staff.

CAEP ACCREDITATION PROCESS The CAEP Accreditation Process is comprised of three (3) stages: Engagement, Review, Decisions. Within these three stages there are multiple steps and sub-steps that need to function as a system. The CAEP Accreditation Process includes enhanced relationships with EPPs, states, affiliates and other stakeholder groups (e.g., Deans, CHEA, USED, and the public).

CAEP Accreditation Process

Latest Developments New Part 1 and Part 2 Application for EPPs seeking first-time accreditation Revised Self-Study Report Formative Feedback Report and Site Visit Report under review and Revision New Site Visitor Training and related performance feedback for site teams Revised Accreditation Councilor Training New CAEP Policy Manual with clear decision rules for accreditation CAEP Accreditation Handbook under review and revision for Initial and advanced standards Scope of Advanced standards updated Standard 3.2 Enhanced external communications and customer service

CAEP APPLICATIONN PROCESS EPPs with NCATE or TEAC accreditation that are in “good standing” are considered CAEP eligible and do NOT have to apply to CAEP. EPPs new to accreditation or that have lapsed accreditation must apply to CAEP. The Part 1 and Part 2 Applications are now revised and available as of July 1, 2017.

CAEP APPLICATION: PART 1 Contact and leadership information Proposed first visit semester Number of Completers Indication of Regional Accreditation status/Financial capacity Agreement to commit to CAEP accreditation Signatures of institutional and EPP leadership Receive AIMS access and an invoice EPPs must complete the application process and schedule a site visit within three years of submitting Part 1 Results in: Applicant status

CAEP Application: PART 2 The Characteristics and Capacity Tables Provides context Overview of capacity to operate programs Select program review option(s) Readiness Self-Assessment Checklist Aims to allow EPPs to assess their readiness to address the CAEP standards Results in: CAEP eligible status; EPP is ready to engage in CAEP accreditation

Program Review All EPPs seeking CAEP Accreditation must complete the program review process. Program review is part of the overall accreditation process EPPs use the results of program review as evidence of meeting CAEP standards States with CAEP agreements determine which program review option can be selected by the EPP: SPA review with national recognition State Program Review CAEP Program Review with Feedback

Program Review 1. CAEP Program Review with National Recognition Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Standards SPA review teams trained by both the SPAs & CAEP 2. CAEP Program Review with Feedback State-selected, InTASC, or NBPTS standards Reviewed by site visitors (currently under revision) 3. State Program Review State-selected standards and process State review team

CAEP Standards for Initial Level Programs 2013: CAEP Standards for Initial Licensure Programs released: Scope: Policy 3.01 Initial Licensure Programs Initial Programs are defined by CAEP as programs at the baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate levels leading to initial licensure, certification, or endorsement that are designed to develop P-12 teachers. All programs offered by the EPP that fall within CAEP’s scope must be submitted in a single self-study report that addresses CAEP Standards for Initial Licensure Programs. First-time licensure areas beyond teaching that are limited to advanced level degrees for other school professionals, such as reading specialists, are addressed [under the advanced level programs].

CAEP Standards for Advanced Level Programs Early 2016: Draft guidelines for standards for advanced level programs released: 2017 Scope updated: Policy 3.02 Advanced Level Programs Advanced Level Programs are defined by CAEP as educator preparation programs submitted for review at the post-baccalaureate or graduate levels leading to licensure, certification, or endorsement. Advanced Level Programs are designed to develop P-12 teachers who have already completed an initial preparation program, currently licensed administrators, other certificated (or similar state language) school professionals for employment in P-12 schools/districts. These programs are submitted to CAEP using the CAEP Standards for Advanced Level Programs. For an EPP with advanced level programs only, or both initial and advanced level programs, a single self-study report is submitted for review

Advanced Program Standards – TIMELINE Semester EPP submits Self-Study Report (SSR) Evidence Required for SSR Spring 2017 Initial Programs Fall 2017 + Fall 2017 begins September 1, 2017 Advanced Programs Any self-study report due before Sept. 1, 2017 does not have to include advanced level programs.  Any self-study report due after September 1, 2017 must include advanced level programs. 

Self-Study report New additions: Tool tips Import Functions Eliminated Selected Improvement Plan – Fall 2019 Transformation Initiative

Accreditation – Procedures EPP 18 months self-study report shell opens in AIMS 9 months before site visit EPP submits self-study report in AIMS Site Team 2 +/- months site team review 2 +/- weeks team’s formative feedback report (FFR), in AIMS

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Submit response and supplemental evidence to formative feedback report within 60 days of receipt Self study addendum Site Team Review self study addendum Prior to site visit

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Works with lead site visitor to prepare for site visit Pre-visit and/or formative feedback report Schedule, interviews, and observations Site Team Formulate tasks for visit Verifies evidence Prepares first draft of site visit report Prepare/submit site visit report 4 weeks after visit

Site Visit Report Site team makes recommendations for AFIs and/or Stipulations Site team does not make recommendations about or assert that a standard is met or unmet; site team focuses on sufficiency of evidence Exit Conference with EPP (small team – most often Dean and accreditation coordinator only) No evidence submitted after site visit exit Site visit report sent to EPP for any factual corrections

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Provider responds on accuracy of site visit report within 7 days Factual corrections only Site Team Lead site visitor receives factual corrections Affirms site visit report, or changes to incorporate factual corrections Final Site Visit Report posted in AIMS, within 7 days

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Writes rejoinder to site teams’ site visit report Or, quits claim to rejoinder, indicating that the EPP is in agreement with the site visit report Site Team Lead site visitor and site team submit lead response to rejoinder

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Accreditation Council, Initial Review Optional attendance by EPP for clarification purposes only Provider, lead site visitor and/or state representatives may attend meeting in person or virtually CAEP Accreditation Council, Initial Review Panel reviews documentation Affirm or revise recommendations on AFIs or Stipulations, if any Makes recommendations regarding standards, met or not met

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Joint Review (Accreditation) No action CAEP Joint Review (Accreditation) Panel reviews documentation Accepts Initial Review Panel recommendations, or revises recommendations regarding standards met or not met and/or AFIs/stipulations

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Accreditation Council, Decision (Accreditation) No action CAEP Accreditation Council, Decision (Accreditation) Accreditation decision for EPP Accreditation Action Letters and Reports sent to EPP and State reps.

Decision Rules for Initial Accreditation Visits

Decision Rules for Continuing Accreditation Visits

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Public Announcement In cases of denial or revocation of accreditation, the provider accepts or appeals CAEP’s action, within 30 days The decision to appeal triggers a different process and set of policies CAEP Public Announcement Announces accreditation Send certification of accreditation or Schedule probationary visit if applicable

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Appeals Process Submit an Appeals Petition Initiates appeals process CAEP Appeals Process Decision, if to deny or revoke accreditation, provider appeals decision

Accreditation – Procedures EPP Annual Report Provider, faculty, submit annual reports in AIMS and fees to CAEP CAEP Annual Report Reports reviewed Feedback

NYSATE/NYCATE FallCon: CAEP Accreditation Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director, Site Visitor Development and EPP Accreditation Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org 202.753.1653 Direct  

Overview This session will focus on the key language and intent of CAEP Initial/Advanced Level Standards and components. Key concepts in standard and components are addressed Content will reference the evidence sufficiency criteria, see handouts. 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.

Preparing the Selected Improvement Self-Study Report - STEPS Demonstrate to Standards Review Inventory of available evidence Gather information, categorize and prepare evidence to upload, and draft table to be completed Take stock Analyze and discuss the evidence and draft of the Selected Improvement Plan Formulate summary/narrative statements Draft and submit Self-Study Report

Step 1. Review (Initial) CAEP Handbook for the most up-to-date guidance on the evidence for the self-study. Assessment Sufficiency Criteria  CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence – ALL Standards CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content 2016-2017 SSRs can present plan with progress data Site visits in F18 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in

Step 1. Review (Advanced) CAEP Handbook for the most up-to-date guidance on the evidence for the self-study. Assessment Sufficiency Criteria  CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence – ALL Standards CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content SSR submitted through academic year 2018/2019 can include plans for components, if applicable 2019-2020 SSRs can present plan with progress data for components, if applicable Site visits in F22 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in

Step 2. Inventory Evidence toward… Candidate performance Completer performance Other CAEP requirements

Step 3. Information, Categorize, and Prepare Gather evidence toward... EPP overview Key concepts in Standard and Components Cross-Cutting Themes Areas For Improvement (legacy)

Step 4. Take Stock With Stakeholders…Faculty; Clinical Faculty, P-12 Districts and/or Schools, Candidates Evidence for Standards Evidence Criteria Evidence Quality Review and seek feedback on what was learned from steps 1–3

CAEP Standard 1/A.1 Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge

CAEP Standard 1/A.1 Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions 1.1 A.1.1 Provider Responsibilities 1.2-1.5 A.1.2

CAEP Standard 1/A.1 Content Knowledge 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]. The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their field of preparation [component A.1.1] and, by completion, can use professional specialty practices flexibly to advance the learning of all P-12 students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards [component A.1.2].

Standard 1/A.1’s Holistic Case The development of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (initial) comes together in candidates’ understanding of content, discipline specific practices, and the ability to address all students, the college-and-career readiness standards. The development of critical concepts and principles (advanced) comes together in candidates’ when applying professional specialty practices, and have the ability to address and advance the learning of all students. CAEP standards for Initial/Advanced Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

EPP-Created Assessments Standard 1 Component 1.1 -Clinic Experience/Observation Instruments -Lesson/Unit Plans -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 EPP-Created Assessments Initial Level Standards Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments  TR

EPP Created- Assessments Standard A.1, component A 1.1 Action Research Capstones/Portfolios/Thesis Dispositional/Professional Responsibility Data Problem-based projects with coursework/ group projects Problem-based projects with school/district Pre- and post-data and reflections on interpretations and use of data End of key-course tests Grades, by program field Survey Data from Completers/Employers EPP Created- Assessments Advanced Level Standards Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments 

CAEP Standard 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

CAEP Standard 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice Partnerships for Clinical Preparation 2.1 A.2.1 Clinical Educators 2.2 Clinical Experiences 2.3 A.2.2

CAEP Standard 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice The provider ensures that effective partnerships [components 2.1 and 2.2] and high-quality clinical practice [component 2.3] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development. learning and development. The provider ensures that effective partnerships [component A.2.1] and high-quality clinical practice [component A.2.2] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field.

Standard 2’s Holistic Case That a strong collaborative clinical preparation is only as strong as the P-12 partnerships, clinical educators (initial), and the clinical experiences. CAEP Standards for Initial/Advanced Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

SUGGESTED for CLINICAL EXPERIENCES Charts illustrating the breadth, depth, duration, and coherence of the opportunities to practice applying content knowledge and skills to practical challenges in their specialty area Evidence mapping the developmental trajectory of specific practical knowledge and skills as candidates’ progress through courses and the clinical experiences embedded within or external to the courses Candidate evaluations of connection between coursework and fieldwork

CAEP Standard 3/A.3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity

CAEP Standard 3/A.3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity Recruitment/Admission of Diverse Candidates who Meet Employment Needs 3.1 A.3.1 Admission Standards Indicate That Candidates Have High Academic Achievement and Ability 3.2 A.3.2 Additional Selectivity Factors (non-academic) 3.3 Selectivity During Preparation (performance standards) 3.4 A.3.3 Selection At Completion (ready, not just finished) 3.5-3.6 A.3.4

CAEP Standard 3/A.3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, 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. 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].

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 Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

Recruitment Plan Key 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 Candidates to 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 TR

CAEP Standard 4/A.4 Program Impact

CAEP Standard 4/A.4 Program Impact Impact on P-12 Student Learning and Development 4.1 Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness 4.2 Satisfaction of Employers 4.3 A.4.1 Satisfaction of Completers 4.4 A.4.2

CAEP Standard 4/A.4 Program Impact The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development [component 4.1], classroom instruction [component 4.2] and schools [component 4.3], and the satisfaction of its completers [component 4.4] with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation. The provider documents the satisfaction of its completers from advanced preparation programs [component 4.2] and their employers [component 4.1] with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Standard 4’s Holistic Case Provider established the outcomes of preparation indicating that completers from licensure programs are impacting P-12 student learning and development. CAEP Standards for Initial Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: IMPACT ON LEARNING Direct measures of student learning and development Addresses diverse subjects and grades P-12 impact or growth data from state teacher evaluations (if available) If state data are not available: Teacher-linked student assessments from districts Classroom-based research (e.g., action research, case studies)

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Teaching Observations Aligned to the 4 InTASC categories Aligned to state standards for teachers / local teacher evaluation framework P-12 Student Surveys Aligned to the InTASC categories Corroboration for observation/evaluation data Employer Surveys Aligned to the InTASC The 4 InTASC categories addressed in Standard 1 are: Learner and Learning, Content, Instructional Practice, and Professional Responsibility.

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: SATISFACTION Completer Surveys Aligned to the InTASC Aligned to state standards for teachers / local teacher evaluation framework Can triangulate with observation/evaluation, survey, and impact data Employer Surveys Corroboration for observation/evaluation and data

SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: SATISFACTION Completer Surveys Aligned to the InTASC Aligned to state standards for teachers / local teacher evaluation framework Can triangulate with observation/evaluation, survey, and impact data Employer Surveys Corroboration for observation/evaluation and data

CAEP Standard 5/A.5 Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

CAEP Standard 5/A.5 Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Quality and Strategic Evaluation 5.1-5.2 A.5.1-A.5.2 Continuous Improvement 5.3-5.5 A.5.3-A.5.5

CAEP Standard 5/A.5 Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement The provider maintains a quality assurance system [component 5.1/A] comprised of valid data from multiple measures [component 5.2/A and outcomes measures in 5.4/A], including evidence of candidates’ and completers’ positive impact on P-12 student learning and development [NOTE: This is a cross reference to preservice impact on P-12 student learning from component 3.5 and to in-service impact from Standard 4]. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers [component 5.3/A and the evidence for Standard 4]. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers’ impact on P-12 student learning and development [component 5.3/A].

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Meeting standard 5, particularly component 5. 1, involves providing evidence of a functioning QAS. Set of indicators related to EPP program management and operations related to meeting the CAEP standards. The indicators refer to systems, processes, and practices that support meeting the current Evidence Sufficiency Criteria for the CAEP Standard. MUTIPLE MEASURES USED TO INFORM, MODIFY, AND EVALUATE EPP TR

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Standard 1 and A.1 There is a functioning process in place for developing and revising assessments of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are assessed align with state and national or association standards for educators. There is a functioning data/record management system in place for recording, storing, and retrieving data on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. There is a system in place to collect, store, and review data on candidates’ practical application of professional knowledge and skills in field settings. There is a functioning process in place for regularly reviewing and monitoring candidate performance.

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Standard 2 and A.2 There is a functioning mechanism in place whereby the EPP and clinical sites collaborate to determine the terms, structure, and content of field experiences hosted at the partner site. EPPs and their partners collaborate on candidate evaluation tools and processes. EPPs and clinical partners regularly discuss the terms, structure, and content of field experiences hosted at the partner site. Clinical partners have a mechanism for providing feedback to the EPP on patterns in candidate strengths and needs and providing input on potential program enhancements. There is a functioning mechanism to ensure that clinical placements occur in diverse settings. Note: Diversity is not limited to race/ethnicity. There is a functioning mechanism to manage the attributes of field experiences (e.g., breadth, depth, duration, and coherence) so that they provide practical experience relevant to Standards 1/A.1 and 4/A.4.

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Standard 3 and A.3 There is a mechanism in place to manage recruitment initiatives to attract applicants from groups and in labor-market areas identified in Component 3.1. There is a system in place to collect, store, analyze and review data relevant to Standard 3 on applicants, enrollees, and exiting candidates.

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Standard 4 and A.4 There is processes in place to collect and update contact information for alumni for 3-years, post-exit. There is a functioning process in place for developing and revising measures of initial level completers’ instructional practices and impact on P-12 student learning. There is a functioning process in place for developing and revising measures of advanced level completers’ satisfaction with their preparation. There is a functioning process in place for developing and revising measures of employers’ satisfaction with the completers’ preparation and performance. There is a system in place to collect, store, analyze, and review data on completers that is relevant to Standard 4/A.4.

Quality Assurance System (QAS) Indicators Standard 5 and A.5 There is a functional process in place to protect curricular integrity There is a functional process in place to ensure the hiring of qualified faculty and program staff (particularly staff involved with clinical placements) There is a process in place to minimize out-of-field teaching assignments and chronic or severe work overload (not simply course load) There is a working mechanism in place for training faculty to collaborate (in-person or virtually, synchronously or asynchronously) to provide feedback and input on candidate learning, the assessment system, and program features, operations, and priorities. The data system collects and stores information relevant to CAEP’s 8 annual outcome measures. There is a functioning process for publicly sharing outcomes and trends (updated annually) for the 8 annual measures. There is a functioning process for involving diverse stakeholders in decision-making, program evaluation, and selection and implementation of improvement initiatives. Documentation of stakeholder inputs to specific decisions, evaluations, and/or improvement initiatives is stored and accessible.

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

Step 6. Formulate Summative and Analytical Statements Frame the argument to be made for standard - what points will be offered, which support the argument Describe the data sources and representativeness, relevant to supporting the standard - why are the data credible for this standard Present the results in a way that aligns with the standard Draw a conclusion about how the data supports the standard  Where appropriate, address triangulation and convergence of different forms of evidence; compensates for limitations of any one data source Discuss the implications of the findings for subsequent action by the provider

7. Draft Self-Study Report Compile a complete draft of report Including evidence; tagged to the appropriate standard(s), component(s), crossing-cutting themes, and data quality documentation Summary and analysis statements The Selected Improvement Plan Review the draft with stakeholders Revise as needed Upload the final into Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS)