1. TACTE Session: Accreditation Overview and Advanced Standards
Michelle D. Bicey, Ed.D. Senior Accreditation Associate

2. Topics for Discussion CAEP Latest Developments
CAEP Accreditation Process Overview
CAEP Advanced Standards Overview and Key Language

3. Latest Developments Fall CAEPCon - September 24 -26 (Washington, DC)
Accreditation Handbook
Version 4 – October 2017 will be available with advanced standards
CAEP Standards for Advanced Programs
Part I – Introduction
Part II – CAEP Accreditation Process
Part III - CAEP Standards and Evidence Sufficiency Criteria

4. CAEP Standards for Advanced Programs
Early 2016:  Draft guidelines released broadly for feedback from the field, offered at the 2016 Spring CAEPCon. 
Fall 2017: Final guidelines will be provided.
Spring 2017: As a reminder, evidence for advanced programs are not required until fall 2017.

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

6. CAEP Accreditation Process Overview

7. Site Team Responsibilities
Pre - Site Visit
Report Type
EPP Responsibilities
Site Team Responsibilities
Self-Study Report (SSR)
CAEP assembles site team. EPP submits self-study report & evidence in AIMS.
Review SSR & evidence submitted by EPP. Lead site visitor will coordinate report writing assignments and formative meeting time.
Formative Feedback Report (FFR)
FFR –Site Visitor draft
No Action Required.
Site visitors will submit individual site visitor drafts as requested by lead site visitor.
FFR - 1st draft
Lead site visitor will compile all drafts and submit 1st draft of FFR at least two (2) weeks prior to the formative meeting call.
FFR - Staff draft
Formative Meeting
Lead site visitor will host formative meeting via GoToMeeting.
FFR - 2nd Site Visitor draft
Site visitors will submit individual 2nd Site Visitor drafts as requested by lead site visitor.
FFR - 2nd draft
Lead site visitor will compile all drafts and submit 2nd draft of FFR within two (2) weeks of the formative meeting.
FFR - QA Staff draft
FFR - Final
Lead site visitor will make any final edits (if needed) and submit to EPP no later than one (1) week after submission of FFR - QA staff draft.
SSR Addendum
EPP uploads supplemental evidence (as requested and appropriate) in response to FFR within 60 days of submission of FFR - Final.
Site team will review Addendum and supplementary evidence in advance of the site visit.

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

9. Accreditation – Procedures
EPP
Submit response and supplemental evidence to formative feedback report
Self study addendum
Site Visitors
Review self study addendum
Prior to site visit

10. Accreditation – Procedures
EPP
Works with lead site visitor on site visit
Schedule, interviews, and observations
Requested, pre-visit and/or formative feedback report
Site Visitors
Formulate tasks for visit
Team verifies evidence
Team prepares site visit report
Prepare/submit site visit report, 4 weeks after

11. Site Team Responsibilities
Site Visit/Post
Report Type
EPP Responsibilities
Site Team Responsibilities
Site Visit Report (SVR)
SVR - Site Visitor draft
No Action Required.
Site visitors will submit individual site visitor drafts as requested by lead site visitor.
SVR - 1st draft
Lead site visitor will compile all site visitor drafts and submit 1st draft of SVR within one (1) week of site visit.
SVR - Staff draft
SVR - QA Staff draft
SVR - 2nd Site Visitor draft
Site visitors will submit individual 2nd Site Visitor drafts as requested by lead site visitor.
SVR - 2nd draft
Lead Site Visitor will compile all Site Visitor drafts and submit 2nd draft of SVR to EPP within one (1) week of submission of SVR - QA staff draft.
Factual Corrections
EPP reviews report and submits Factual Corrections in response to inaccurate information (if any) within one (1) week of submission of the SVR – 2nd draft in AIMS.
SVR - Final
Lead site visitor will incorporate EPP's Factual Corrections (as appropriate) and submit final report within two (2) week of F/C.
CAEP Rejoinder
The EPP submits its response to report within 30 days of submission of final SVR.
Lead Response to CAEP Rejoinder
Site team reviews EPP’s response. Lead Site Visitor submits a Response to Rejoinder within two (2) weeks of submission of Rejoinder.

12. Accreditation – Procedures
EPP
Provider responds, on accuracy of site visit report, within 7 days
Factual corrections
CAEP Rejoinder
Site Visitors
Lead visitor receives factual corrections
Affirms to site visit report, or reverses
Response posted in AIMS, within 7 days
Lead site visitor responds to the CAEP Rejoinder within 2 weeks of initial submission

13. Accreditation – Procedures
EPP
Accreditation Council, Initial Review (Accreditation)
Optional attendance
Provider and/or state representative attend meeting
CAEP
Accreditation Council, Initial Review
Panel reviews documentation
Affirm AFIs or Stipulations, if any, recommendations
Recommendations regarding standards, met or not met

14. Accreditation – Procedures
EPP
Joint Review (Accreditation)
No action
CAEP
Joint Review (Accreditation)
Panel reviews documentation
Accepts Initial Review Panel recommendation, or revises
Recommendations regarding standards, met or not met

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

16. CAEP Standards Overview

17. Common General Rules for all CAEP Standards
Address all components of the standard in the self-study report
At least three cycles of data must be submitted and analyzed
Disaggregated data are provided on enrolled candidates (if applicable)
Cycles of data must be sequential and be the latest available
EPP-created assessments should be scored at the CAEP Sufficient Level

18. Strategies for Addressing Standards
Collect the Evidence
Analyze the Evidence
Quality of Good Evidence:
Validity
Reliability
Relevance
Representativeness
Fairness
Actionability
3. Write about the Evidence

19. Bucket(s) of Evidence Think of each standard as a bucket
EPPs “drop” 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 used the data to determine that weakness?
What are your next steps to address that area of weakness?

20. Everything placed in a Bucket
Have we addressed the standard completely with multiple data points?
Are only the items specific to the component cited as evidence for the component?
Are all evidence linked directly to the standard/ component by specifically “tagging” that item?
Can any of the evidence be used as evidence for other components/standards?

21. 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 GR

22. Summative Statements vs. Analytic Statements
Why are Summative Statements not enough?
Summaries identify the information provided
Do not provide analysis and interpretation over the quality of the evidence and data
Do not identify trends/patterns, comparisons, gaps, and/or differences
Provider (required) does not demonstrate conducting their own analysis and evaluation GR

23. A Summative Statement
DC State College provided data on the accepted applicant cohort’s GPAs and SAT scores required for admission. Many of EPP’s candidates have a 3.0 GPA average and are in the top 30th percentile. GR

24. An Analytical Statement
The Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) requires applicants to have a 2.8 GPA and to be in the top 50th percentile on the SAT or ACT (Exhibit 32, Catalog Admission Requirements). Data provided from indicates that the cohort average GPA for 22 admitted candidates was a 3.3 and applicants, were in the top 30th percentile on the SAT and top 40th percentile on the ACT. These data are also consistent with those provided from and accepted cohort scores. GR

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

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

27. 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].
A1.1
Demonstrates that most candidates pass state/nationally-benchmarked content/licensure exams;
Addresses all of the professional skills listed in the component; make sure that you are using multiple measure to assess proficiency;
A1.2
Present sources of evidence that candidates apply advanced preparation knowledge at specialty area levels (SPA)
Includes a discussion of performance trends and compares across specialty areas.

28. Standard 1/A.1- Holistically
The development of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge comes together in candidates’ understanding of content, discipline specific practices, and the ability to address, for all, the college-and-career readiness standards.
that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

29. CAEP Standard 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

30. 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

31. 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.
A.2.1
Show that P-12 and EPP are both benefitting from partnership
Also show the collaborative process that is in place and reviewed annually
Speak to the opportunities for candidates to observe and implement appropriate and effective strategies for their field of specialization
A2.2
Show that all candidates have active clinical experiences
Document a sequence of clinical experiences with specific goals that are focused, purposeful, and varied
Also that performance based criteria is used when assessing the clinical experience

32. Standard 2/A.2 Holistically
That a strong collaborative clinical preparation is only as robust as the P-12 partnerships and the clinical experiences.
that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

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

34. 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)
A.3.4

35. 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].
A.3.1
Recruitment plan with base points and annual monitoring; including academic ability, diversity, and employment needs
Data on applicants, admitted, and enrolled candidates are disaggregated by relevant demographics
A.3.2 (THIS ONE IS REQUIRED)
At least three cycles of data/evidence presented and analyzed
Data is disaggregated for enrolled candidates by demographics and branch campuses
A3.3
Document two or more measures/gateways of candidate progression
Present explicit criteria on how candidates are monitored and assessed on development through the preparation
A3.4
Documents each candidate in program is 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

36. Standard 3/A.3’s Holistically
Providers continuously and purposely recruit, admit, monitor, and recommend towards licensure of candidates from quality educator preparation programs.
that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

37. CAEP Standard 4/A.4 Program Impact

38. 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
All components are required and must be met for Standard A.4 to be considered met.

39. 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.
A.4.1
Submit surveys or whatever it is that states how pleased the employer is with the preparation that the completer has received
Talk about how the data is analyzed, what system do you have in place to provide an analysis of the data
A.4.2
Graduate surveys or whatever you use to gauge how happy the completer is with the preparation that was received
Again, what system are you using to analyze the data

40. Standard 4/A.4 Holistically
Provider established the outcomes of preparation indicating that completers from licensure programs are impacting P-12 student learning and development.
that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts TR

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

42. SUGGESTED EVIDENCE: CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
Teaching Observations
Aligned to 4 InTASC categories
Aligned to state standards for teachers/local teacher evaluation framework
P-12 Student Surveys
Aligned to the InTASC categories
Rationale for observation/evaluations data
Employer Surveys
Rationale for observation/evaluation data

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

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

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

46. 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].
A.5.1
Multiple measures are used to inform, modify, and evaluate your operational effectiveness (what systems are in place, are your regularly reviewing them and the data)
A.5.2
EPP (Your) created assessments have a level of sufficiency as defined by the CAEP Assessment Rubric and there is documentation of this evidence
A.5.3
Evidence of regular and systematic data-driven modifications
Evidence that the results of modifications are monitored and adjusted as appropriate to produce positive trends in improvement
A.5.4
Evidence that the CAEP eight outcome measures are a source for driving program changes.
A.5.5
Description of stakeholders and their roles in the EPP’s quality reviews related to:
Program evaluation
Decision-making
Selection of improvement targets/priorities and implementation of these changes

47. 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

48. Embedded in Every Aspect of Educator Preparation
Cross-Cutting Themes TR

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

50. Themes of Technology and Diversity
Standard A.1
Completers use their professional specialty practices “flexibly to advance the learning of P-12 students toward attainment of college-and career-readiness standards” to enhance “learning and development opportunities” for students.
Completers use “data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments”.
Technology Standard A.1
Candidates apply technology appropriate to their field of specialization. TR

51. Themes of Technology and Diversity
Standard A.2
Clinical experiences prepare candidates to fulfill their specialized professional roles to benefit all students.
Technology Standard A.2
Technology-based collaborations may be included in partnerships TR

52. Themes of Technology and Diversity
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
Completers can apply technology in appropriate ways to their field of specialization. TR

54. Thank you and see you at capeCon!
Michelle D. Bicey, Ed.D. Senior Accreditation Associate