CONNECT WITH CAEP | | CAEP Accreditation and STEM Stevie Chepko, Sr. VP for Accreditation

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Culture of Evidence EPPs intentionally and purposefully select evidence that documents a standard is met  Focus is on output measures – application of content knowledge  Not a compliance model  Not a checklist  CAEP seeks to partner with EPPs in creating a culture of evidence - That encourages and allows for innovation That ask and answers important questions Documents what works and does not work Change or staying the course is based on data driven decisions

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Testing hypotheses, teaching strategies and innovations  Test assumptions about EPPs effectiveness Through data collection and analyzes Using assessments that have been validated and field tested Ensuring the reliability of the data Demonstrating that data have been used appropriately and support conclusions Finding out what does not work is as important as finding out what does not work! – All the data does not have to be positive – Using data to support change is important

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Assessment Rubric (DRAFT) Assessment rubric is available on CAEP’s website  Provides guidance on what reviewers will be seeking specific to EPP created assessments  Why Rubrics? EPPS need to define the criteria used to determine candidate’s classroom readiness Important conversations for faculty and P-12 partners to have together – Define expectations in conjunction with partners – Provide on-going and specific feedback to candidates on EPP’s performance expectations – Most important part of process – the conversations on expectations

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Assessment and STEM EPPs define expectations at the minimal competency level  Align and define assessments items specific to STEM expectations and values Use of problem based learning Teaching for transfer of learning Focus on critical thinking Focus on problem solving Focus on collaboration Focus on application of content knowledge Focus on cross disciplinary teaching approach

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Five Big Questions on Assessments  What is the purpose and use of the instrument?  How was the instrument developed? Involvement of content specialists Involvement of P-12 teachers Avoid the development of assessments in isolation  What are respondents told about the instrument?  Do the instruments require the assessment of higher levels of intellectual behavior (e.g., creating, evaluating, analyzing, applying, etc.)?  Do scoring levels provide distinct levels of candidate performance?

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Assessment Rubric (DRAFT) –  Why Rubrics? EPPS need to define the criteria used to determine candidate’s classroom readiness – Define expectations in conjunction with partners – Provide on-going and specific feedback to candidates on EPP’s performance expectations – Minimal level of competency must be defined » Analytical rubric is not required » EPP’s can simply define the minimal level for each item on the assessment

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standard by Standard Buckets of Evidence Think of each standard as a bucket  EPPs drop (valid) evidence in the bucket specific to the standard Requires multiple data points for each standard Addresses each component, but EPPs do not have to “meet” each component Having an identified weakness in an area or component is NOT a bad thing – How have you use the data to determine that weakness? – What are you next steps to address that area of weakness?

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | First Category of Evidences for Submission – EPP created Assessments  Upload any protocols associated with the assessment  Upload the assessment and the rubric used with the assessment if applicable Includes such evidence as surveys (exit, employers, in- service, etc.) Includes any EPP created assessments such as observation instruments, work samples, lesson or unit plans, etc.  Upload data charts for each submitted assessment  Narrative on how validity was established  Narrative on how reliability has been or will be established

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Second Category of Evidence – Other forms of Evidence Evidence that is not data related or collected using an instrument of some kind  Minutes from meetings  MOU on Partnerships with PDS  Requirements for various entry points into the program  Portions of student teaching handbook  Catalogue information  Narrative data from focus groups  Other types of narrative data  Standard 2 is specific to partnerships with P-12 schools

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Third Category of Evidence – Proprietary Assessments Proprietary Assessments  Assessments where an outside agency or company holds the copyright on the assessment State licensure exams edTPA, PPAT, VAM, etc. Other national assessments including surveys  For proprietary assessments, EPPs submit the data from the assessment Report any validity or reliability data on the assessment provided by the agency or company Data must be aligned to standard/component

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Fourth Category of Data – EPPs Plans Any plans submitted by EPPs as evidence during the transition phase-in period  For Early Adopters, this includes how the feedback will be used from the Optional 3 year out review  Applies to Component 1.4 under Standard 1 Fifth Category of Data – State requirements  Only applies to EPPs in states that allow the Program review with Feedback Option  Reviewed by the state representative on the visitor team

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Optional Early Review of Assessments Three years before due date of self-study  EPPs submit assessments for review  Assessments are reviewed by specially trained evaluators Feedback is provided to EPPs based on the assessment rubric Reviewers identify strengths and weaknesses of assessments Reviewers’ feedback becomes part of the review process  Allows enough time for EPPs to make improvements to assessments and collect at least two cycles of data before the self-study is due  Part of CAEP’s capacity building effort

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Summary Reflection For each standard, EPP completes a summary reflection based on the evidence presented  Reviewers determine if the standard is met based on the preponderance of evidence presented.  All components must be addresses, but not all components have to be met.  There can be weaknesses in evidence for component(s), but overall the standard was met  Decision is made on the overall strength of the evidence and not individual components

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Making the Case – for all Components and Standards Criteria for Making the Case  Information is provided from several sources and documents completer proficiencies in content knowledge and pedagogical skills  Grades, scores, pass rates and other data are analyzed  Differences and similarities across licensure areas, comparisons over time, and demographical data are examined  Appropriate interpretations and conclusions are reached  Trends or patterns are identified that suggest need for preparation modification  Based on the analysis of data, planned or completed actions for change are described

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | New CAEP Requirements and Changes Reviewers provide an analysis of the evidence in the self-study and not a summary of the evidence presented  EPPs must make their case to reviewers  Reviewers determine the strength of the evidence supporting the case made by the EPP  Reviewers do not make specific statements on if the standard is met – provide an analysis of the strength of the evidence for each standard  Cultural change for both EPPs and reviewers

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standards aligned to STEM Standard 1 and Component 14:  Providers ensure that completers 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). Standard 1 and Component 1.5:  Providers ensure that completers model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standards aligned to STEM(cont.) Standard 2 and Component 2.3:  The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breath, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students’ learning and development. Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ development of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, that are associated with a positive impact on learning and development of all P-12 students.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standards aligned to STEM(cont.) Standard 3 and 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 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.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standards aligned to STEM(cont.) Standard 3 and Component 3.4: The provider creates criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’ advancement from admission 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.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standards aligned to STEM(cont.) Standard 3 and 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 impact on P- 12 learning and development.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Other CAEP Initiatives Steering Committee for the Revision of Elementary Standards (K-8)  Steering committee includes specialists in math, science, and social studies  Seeking a new model for teaching of STEM content at the elementary level Addressing math and science phobia for many elementary candidates Developing pre-condition requirements that must be met – Required content specific coursework – Focus on content specific pedagogical skills to increasing student engagement » Fewer worksheets and more application » Developing a culture of explanation

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Questions be asked - What can CAEP do to help?

Q & A