CAEP Accreditation Foci, Process, and Recognition
What can educator preparation providers expect from CAEP in 2012?
The three accreditation paths currently offered will continue under CAEP: Continuous Improvement, Inquiry Brief, and Transformation Initiative.
These three paths are all characterized by a commitment to continuous improvement and transformation.
The Continuous Improvement and Inquiry Brief paths continue to function as they have, guided by existing frameworks and supported by the same staff teams throughout the transition.
Transformation Initiatives are major R&D undertakings and can be conducted by one provider or a group of providers. The Transformation Initiative path is now in pilot mode through 2015, and we encourage preparation providers to consider it. A Committee on Transformation Initiatives has been named to help develop policies pertaining to this accreditation path and vet preparation provider proposals.
How will CAEP build on the strengths of NCATE and TEAC?
CAEP is characterized by a continuous improvement focus, which both NCATE and TEAC have emphasized in the past.
CAEP will continue the expectation for preparation providers to collect and analyze data, and to use that data for program improvement.
CAEP will continue a two-step accreditation process in order to provide feedback to preparation providers prior to the on-site visit. The CAEP pre-visit feedback process will combine features of NCATE's off-site review with features of TEAC's formative evaluation process.
What will be new in CAEP?
CAEP will feature a streamlined seven year accreditation visit with more targeted annual reporting of key outcome data and substantive changes, which provides constituencies with more pertinent information.
NCATE and TEAC already expect programs to collect data on candidate performance continuously, and CAEP is committed to supporting continued improvement in data quality and increasingly effective use of data by all programs.
CAEP will feature new decision rules for accreditation decision-making. This will help ensure increased consistency and accuracy in decision-making.
CAEP will feature a list of recommended evidence sources, which is being updated and refined now.
CAEP will feature a new Program Review with Feedback option, providing three options for states to select from as paths for program review.
What is the status of the transition to CAEP?
NCATE and TEAC are already in the process of transferring non-accreditation functions to CAEP and expect to complete these tasks no later than December, 2012. Because the U.S. Department of Education requires CAEP to perform a small number of accreditation decisions before it recognizes the new accrediting body, the transfer of accreditation functions will take place during 2013. However, those institutions with visits planned through 2014 will continue under current guidelines appropriate to the pathway selected.
What is the status of CHEA recognition?
NCATE and TEAC are pursuing CHEA recognition of CAEP as soon as possible. In the interim, NCATE and TEAC each currently have applications pending for re-recognition under CHEA. NCATE and TEAC will retain CHEA recognition status as we proceed with recognition of CAEP. Given that CAEP is a new organization, Jim Cibulka and Mark LaCelle-Peterson are consulting with CHEA to determine how CAEP recognition can be expedited. CHEA will work with us to determine the most time-efficient approach to CAEP recognition.
What new set of standards is CAEP developing, and how has the development process been working?
Initial Standards Now
CAEP has initial standards right now which were generated by the NCATE and TEAC joint design team two years ago and encompass current NCATE and TEAC standards.
A Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting was announced at the AACTE Annual Meeting in Chicago. A release to the press is forthcoming.
The Commission will be composed of distinguished leaders from all sectors of the field with broad experience and deep expertise.
The Commission's agenda for the standards will be ambitious and will necessarily include reports and events which have transpired in the two years since the initial CAEP standards were completed. Some of the major reports, events, and policy context impacting the development of the new accreditation standards include
Common Core Standards;
the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers (2010);
National Research Council report, Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy (2010), which highlights the following three areas within preparation for intense focus: content, clinical experiences, and quality of candidates;
the increasing diversity of learners in 21st century schools and the need to differentiate instruction;
the need to increase P-12 student achievement in all schools, especially student achievement in high needs schools;
TNE Learning Network's research agenda and focus on clinical preparation;
the McKinsey study on academic qualifications of teacher candidates in America versus other developed nations; other studies on recruiting/admissions in educator preparation; and
the increasing number of pathways to teacher licensure.
The Commission's work should take approximately one year. The draft standards will be made available for public comment and a final version is expected to be adopted by the CAEP Board during 2013.
Vision for the Future for CAEP and for Educator Preparation Providers
What is the vision for CAEP five years from now?
CAEP will increase the use of key outcome data for accreditation decision making�which states are increasingly placing online and providers have access to�for example, new and better performance measures.
CAEP will be discussing initial results of expanded research into how the components of preparation programs contribute to candidate and graduate effectiveness, and preparation providers would make changes to preparation programs accordingly.
A national conversation on performance measures would have taken place, with the field embracing common definitions for program components�i.e., clinical experience, etc.�so that benchmarking against other like providers can occur.
(That point is somewhat speculative because we are not clear how much performance data will have been made available, but these are our optimistic assumptions!)
All states have partnerships with CAEP to increase the rigor of preparation, and increase the efficiency (state use of market data and placement data) and effectiveness of programs.
What is CAEP's vision for the accredited school of education/preparation provider for the future?
CAEP will have raised the bar for the quality of the evidence (reliability and validity) which is used to support claims of quality and effectiveness.
CAEP is also focused on the recommendations of the National Research Council and the three key areas of preparation they recommend which could be leveraged to lead to improved student achievement: content, clinical experiences, and quality of candidates.
Preparation will be much more clinically-based, and performance-based assessments used in educator preparation will align with performance-based assessments used for licensing.
Preparation providers will be working in partnership with school districts and states to build and test prototypes of clinically-based models and will develop an iterative set of best practices based on the results.
Preparation will feature strong partnerships with P-12 schools and districts to address urgent P-12 needs.
There will be new roles and responsibilities for higher education and P-12 faculty, e.g., increased use of clinical faculty.
There will be increased focus on key outcome data and key program characteristic data. CAEP has pledged to use multiple measures in its accreditation system as both accreditors have in the past.
How should schools of education be proactively preparing for the changes that CAEP anticipates?
As we have worked on establishing CAEP, we have encouraged preparation providers to engage in program redesign to meet the needs of the schools and districts they serve. We've identified specific areas in which preparation providers could be focusing.
In addition, the reports and standards that have been released in the past two years have had an effect on the field already: the Common Core Standards, the InTASC Standards, the National Research Council report, the Blue Ribbon Panel report, and others. In addition, the advent of data coming from state databases is already a game-changer for institutions, and preparation providers are already using that data in LA, TN, and elsewhere to improve programs.
We will highlight best practices in the near future. We also hope to use social networking to link programs to one another in new ways so that they can share and learn from each other.
How will CAEP promote a unified vision of the qualities and expectations of teaching and teachers?
CAEP will be composed of all sectors of the profession, and that �coalition' will be maintained through CAEP's boards and its various committees and those who serve on them.
What actions does CAEP plan to take in order to promote the positive image of teacher education and help the US reestablish itself as a leader in education?
CAEP has pledged to raise the bar for educator preparation in the U.S. As it does so, and makes accreditation decisions, it will establish its own credibility. Its standards will help transform educator preparation to better meet the needs of 21st century learners. New performance measures will aid the professionalization of teaching and educator preparation.
What will the State Partnership Template look like?
The major difference will be that the institutions have a choice of the approach to CAEP Accreditation�three paths at present:
The state will select either an all-CAEP team or a Joint-State CAEP team. Concurrent teams are being phased out.
We are beginning to pilot the CAEP State Partnership Agreements and Protocols, now with five states: Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. A second cycle will take place in fall 2012, and a third in 2013.
States will select the program review options to be available in that state. Three program review options are available:
CAEP Program Review with National Recognition (specialized professional association review).
CAEP Program Review with Feedback (clustered reports reviewed to produce feedback related to meeting the state-selected standards). CAEP will pilot this new program review option in spring and fall 2013 with invited institutions from the five states in the first of three state partnership agreement pilot phases.
State Program Review
The new protocol will be more streamlined. It will emphasize more stakeholder input into the Agreement.
Specialized Professional Associations
What do you see as the role of specialized professional accreditation in the accreditation process in the future?
Specialized professional associations have been extremely influential in raising the rigor of content standards for the teaching profession. They are a key resource to the states and the profession. We must have their expertise at the table. Their knowledge of research and best practice in the various disciplines is key to CAEP's rigor. One of the three program review options will continue to be Program Review with National Recognition conducted collaboratively between CAEP and specialized professional associations.
Alignment with Common Core Standards
How much will Common Core Standards impact the development of accreditation standards?
CAEP will support closer linkages with Common Core State Standards. Accreditation standards must address 21st century needs and the needs of P-12 students, so in those states that have adopted Common Core Standards, CAEP will ensure that education programs emphasize connections and alignment between the emerging standards, district implementation, and how teachers are prepared.
Download this Q&A:
Q&A on CAEP as NCATE and TEAC Transition to a Unified Accrediting Body (Adobe PDF)