CAEPACCREDITATIONSTANDARDSANDEVIDENCE:

AspirationsforEducatorPreparation
Recommendationsfromthe CAEPCommissiononStandardsandPerformanceReporting totheCAEPBoardofDirectors June11,2013

CAEPCommissiononStandards andPerformanceReporting

CamillaBenbow,cochair PatriciaandRodesHart DeanofEducationandHumanDevelopment VanderbiltUniversity,PeabodyCollege TerryHolliday,cochair CommissionerofEducation KentuckyDepartmentofEducation MarquitaGrenotScheyer,Dean, CollegeofEducation,California StateUniversity,LongBeach

AndrsAlonso,ChiefExecutive Officer,BaltimoreCityPublic Schools

RebeccaPringle,Secretary/ Treasurer,NationalEducation Association

JoAnnBartoletti,Executive Director,NationalAssociationof SecondarySchoolPrincipals

WilliamIsler,SchoolBoard Representative,PittsburghPublic Schools

SidneyRibeau,President,Howard University

ErikBitterbaum,President,State UniversityofNewYorkCollegeat Cortland

ChristopherKoch,State Superintendent,IllinoisStateBoard ofEducation

BenjaminRiley,DirectorofPolicy andAdvocacy,NewSchools VentureFund

MaryBrabeck,Dean,Steinhardt SchoolofCulture,Educationand HumanDevelopment,NewYork University

Jim Kohlmoos, Principal,EDGE ConsultingLLC

DavidRitchey,ExecutiveDirector, AssociationofTeacherEducators

JillianLederhouse,Professorof Education,WheatonCollege

HaydeeRodriguez,NBCT,History andTheatreTeacher,CentralUnion HighSchoolDistrict,California

PeggyBrookins,NBCT, MathematicsInstructor,Forest HighSchool,Florida

ArthurLevine,President,Woodrow WilsonNationalFellowship Foundation

TerryRyan,VicePresidentforOhio Programs&Policy,ThomasB. FordhamInstitute

GailConnelly,ExecutiveDirector, NationalAssociationofElementary SchoolPrincipals

RichardDeLisi,Dean,TheGraduate SchoolofEducation,Rutgers University

AnnieLewisODonnell,Vice President,ProgramDesignand TeacherPreparation,Teachfor America

PhilipSchmidt,AssociateProvost, TeachersCollege,Western GovernorsUniversity

PaulLingenfelter,President,State HigherEducationExecutiveOfficers

DavidSteiner,Dean,Schoolof Education,HunterCollege

MelissaErickson,PTALeader, HillsboroughPublicSchools,Florida

Francis(Skip)Fennell,Professorof Education,McDanielCollege

DeborahL.Ford,Chancellor, UniversityofWisconsinParkside

PatriciaManzanaresGonzales, ProvostandVicePresidentfor AcademicAffairs,WesternState ColoradoUniversity (inmemorium)

JenniferStern,ExecutiveDirector, TalentManagement,DenverPublic Schools

JulieUnderwood,Dean,Schoolof Education,UniversityofWisconsin Madison

SusanFuhrman,President, TeachersCollege,Columbia University

TinaMarshallBradley,Associate VicePresident,AcademicAffairs, PaineCollege

RandiWeingarten,President, AmericanFederationofTeachers

KurtF.Geisinger,Professorof EducationalPsychology,University ofNebraska

SusanB.Neuman,Professorof Education,UniversityofMichigan

BobWise,President,Alliancefor ExcellentEducation

RickGinsberg,Dean,Schoolof Education,UniversityofKansas DesigneesattheJunemeeting JarrodBolteforAndresAlonso AndyCoonsforHaydeeRodriguez HonorFedeforGailConnelly

Tom Payzant, Superintendent, BostonPublicSchoolsand ProfessorofPractice,Harvard GraduateSchoolofEducation (retired)

DonnaWiseman,Dean,Collegeof Education,UniversityofMaryland

GeneHarris,Superintendentand CEO,ColumbusCitySchools,served ascochairuntilherresignationin December2012.

DickFlanaryforJoanneBartoletti CharlesLenthforPaulLingenfelter HeatherHardingforAnnieLewisODonnell JoanBaratzSnowdenforRandiWeingarten MarianaHaynesforBobWise JolandaWesterhofforDeborahFord

TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary MessagefromtheCochairs Introduction AccreditationStandardsandRecommendations Standard1:ContentandPedagogicalKnowledge Standard2:ClinicalPartnershipsandPractice Standard3:CandidateQuality,Recruitment,andSelectivity Standard4:ProgramImpact Standard5:ProviderQualityAssuranceandContinuousImprovement RecommendationsoftheCAEPCommissiononAnnualReportingandCAEPMonitoring RecommendationsoftheCAEPCommissiononLevelsofAccreditationDecisions Crosscuttingthemes:DiversityandTechnologyandDigitalLearning RecommendationsonEvidenceinAccreditation Introduction WhereWeAreandWhereWeNeedtoGo JudgePreparationontheBasisofImpactofCompletersonP12Learning andDevelopment MakingaCasethatStandardsareMet ContinuousImprovement ImplementationofNewStandardsandNewExpectationsforEvidence BetterData,BetterUsed ScopeoftheCommissionsRecommendations Appendix:TypicalandSuggestedMeasuresforAccreditationEvidenceReferences Organization oftheCommissionReporttotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Page 2 6 8 10 10 14 16 21 22 24 26 28 31 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 41

TheCommissionsrecommendationsarecontainedinfoursections: 1. Thestandards,organizedwithinfivelargetopics,aswellasadditionalrecommendations. Eachgroupofstandardsissupportedbyarationalethatpresentstheknowledgefrom researchandpracticesupportingthestandardandthatincludesendnotecitationsforeach referencesource. 2. Crosscuttingthemes,describinganoverarchingemphasisondiversityandtechnology. Thesethemesarethreadedthroughoutthestandards,reflectingtheCommissions perspectivethattheyneedtobeintegratedthroughoutpreparationexperiences. 3. TheCommissionscumulativerecommendationsaboutuseofevidenceandresponsibilities ofbotheducatorpreparationprovidersandCAEPitself.TherelatedAppendixdisplaysthe Commissionsexamplesofevidencethatprovidersmightuseintheiraccreditationself studies,aswellasintheirownqualityassurancesystems. 4. ThescopeoftheCommissionrecommendationsinregardtootherschoolpersonnel,aswell CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|1 asU.S.DepartmentofEducationregulations.

ExecutiveSummary
TheChargetotheCommission TheCouncilfortheAccreditationofEducationPreparation(CAEP)ispoisedtoraisethebarfor preparationofeducatorsinournation.CAEPwillserveasamodelaccreditorwithrigorousstandards, demandingsoundevidenceandestablishingaplatformtodrivecontinuousimprovementand innovation.Asitsfirstinitiativetoachievethosegoals,theCAEPBoardofDirectorscreatedtheCAEP CommissiononStandardsandPerformanceReportingandchargeditwithtransformingthepreparation ofteachersbycreatingarigoroussystemofaccreditationthatdemandsexcellenceandproduces educatorswhoraisestudentachievement. ConsensusonRigorousStandards TheCommissionbroughttogetherprominentcriticsofeducatorpreparation,aswellasdeansofschools ofeducation;contentexpertsinmathematicsandreading;P12teacher,principal,andschool superintendentleadership;alternativeprovider/charterleadership;statepolicymakers;representatives ofeducationpolicy/advocacyorganizations;andpublicmembersinordertodevelopforall preparationprovidersthenextgenerationofaccreditationstandardsbasedonevidence,continuous improvement,innovation,andclinicalpractice.Ultimately,theCommissionagreedonthefollowing consensusrecommendationsforsubmissiontotheCAEPBoardofDirectors,reflectingahistoriccoming togetherofdiverseeducationstakeholdersaroundacommonvisionforwhatqualityeducator preparationshouldinclude. LeveragingReform CAEPaccreditationisaboutleveragingotherreformeffortstotransformeducatorpreparationinour nation.TheCAEPCommissionaligneditsworkwithavarietyofotherefforts,includingcollegeand careerreadystandards,thenewInTASCstandards,the2012reportbytheCouncilofChiefStateSchool Officers(CCSSO)TaskForceonEducationPreparationandEntryintotheProfession,andothernational reportsrelatedtoeducationreform.Leveragepointswithinthestandardsincludethefollowing: BuildpartnershipsandstrongclinicalexperiencesEducationpreparationprovidersand collaboratingschoolsandschooldistrictsbringcomplementaryexperiencesthat,joined together,promisefarstrongerpreparationprograms.(SeeStandard2.) RaiseandassurecandidatequalityFromrecruitmentandadmission,throughpreparationand atexit,educatorpreparationprovidersmusttakeresponsibilitytobuildaneducatorworkforce thatismoreableandalsomorerepresentativeofAmericasdiversepopulation.(SeeStandard 3,includingminimumadmissionscriteriaofa3.0gradepointaverageandagroupaverage performanceonnationallynormedadmissionsassessmentsinthetopthirdofnationalpools.) IncludeallprovidersAccreditationmustencourageinnovationsinpreparationbywelcoming allofthevariedprovidersthatseekaccreditationandmeetchallenginglevelsofperformance. Andsurmountingallothers,insistthatpreparationbejudgedbyoutcomesandimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentResultsmatter;effortisnotenough.(SeeStandard4and annualreportingrecommendations.) CrosscuttingThemes:DiversityandTechnology Throughoutitsdeliberations,theCommissionfacedthetwinchallengesofdevelopingcohortsofnew educatorswhocanlifttheperformanceofthefulldiversityofP12studentswhiletakingadvantageof thedigitalagesnewopportunities.Diversityandtechnologyaretwocriticalareasthatrequirenew

2|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 learningandsubstantialinnovationbypreparationproviders;thesignificantdemographicand technologicalchangesthatimpacttheirprogramsalsoinfluencetheskillstheircompletersmustmaster tobeeffective.Becausethesetwoelementsareimbeddedineveryaspectofeducatorpreparation,the Commissionchosetorecognizethemthroughouttherecommendedstandards. Diversitymustbeapervasivecharacteristicofanyqualitypreparationprogram.TheCommission expectsresponsibleproviderstoensurethatcandidatesdevelopproficienciesinspecificaspectsof diversitythatappearintheCommissionsrecommendedstandardsandtoembeddiversityissues throughoutallaspectsofpreparationcoursesandexperiences. TheStandardsandRecommendations TheCommissionsworkwasorganizedinpartaroundthethreeareasofteacherpreparationidentified bytheNationalAcademyofSciences2010report,PreparingTeachers:BuildingEvidenceforSound Policy,aslikelytohavethestrongesteffectsonoutcomesforstudentscontentknowledge,clinical experience,andthequalityofteachercandidates.1TheCommissiondraftedthefollowingthree standardsrelatedtotheseareas: Standard1:CONTENTANDPEDAGOGICALKNOWLEDGE The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of collegeandcareerreadinessstandards. Standard2:CLINICALPARTNERSHIPSANDPRACTICE The provider ensures that effective partnerships and highquality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P12 students learning and development. Standard3:CANDIDATEQUALITY,RECRUITMENT,ANDSELECTIVITY The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification. The provider demonstrates that development of candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program.ThisprocessisultimatelydeterminedbyaprogramsmeetingofStandard4. TheultimategoalofeducatorpreparationistheimpactofprogramcompletersonP12studentlearning anddevelopment,asframedbytheCommissioninthefollowingstandard: Standard4:PROGRAMIMPACT The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers withtherelevanceandeffectivenessoftheirpreparation. InkeepingwithCAEPsstrategicgoalstobebothamodelaccreditingbodyandamodellearning organization,theCommissionalsoexploredattributesofhighperformingeducationorganizations.Key

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|3

conceptsforsuchorganizationsarearelentlessfocusonresultsandasystematicandpurposefuluseof evidenceforcontinuousimprovement.Thefifthstandardisbuiltupontheseconcepts: Standard5:PROVIDERQUALITYASSURANCEANDCONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates and completers positive impact on P12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidencebased, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance programelementsandcapacity,andtestinnovationstoimprovecompletersimpactonP 12studentlearninganddevelopment. TheCommissionalsoofferedrecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectorsrelatedtoAnnual ReportingandCAEPMonitoring,aswellasLevelsofAccreditationDecisions.Theannualreporting recommendationsinvolvegatheringandmonitoringmeasuresrelatedtoprogramimpact,program outcomes,andconsumerinformation,andalsoCAEPidentificationofbothlevelsofperformanceand significantamountsofchangeinanyoftheseindicatorsthatwouldpromptfurtherexamination.These datawouldbepublishedasarecurringfeatureinCAEPsannualreport.Therecommendedlevelsof accreditationdecisionsincludedenialofaccreditation;probationaryaccreditation;fullaccreditation; andafteradesignandpilotingperiodanexemplaryorgoldaccreditationasacapstonemeasure. EvidenceandAccountability ThechargetotheCommissiongaveequalweighttoessentialstandardsandaccompanyingevidence indicatingthatstandardsaremet.TheCommissionintegratedissuesofdataandevidenceintoits conversationsthroughoutitsdeliberationsandidentifiedsixaspectsofevidencethatsummarizeits perspectives: 1. Decisionsareinformedbymultiplemeasures. 2. PreparationisjudgedbytheimpactthatcompletershaveonP12studentlearningand development. 3. Educatorpreparationprovidersareresponsibleforthevalidityandreliabilityofevidencethey offertodemonstratethatCAEPstandardsaremet. 4. Educatorpreparationprovidersmaintainqualityassurancesystemsthatsupportcontinuous monitoringofawiderangeofconditionsandoutcomesofpreparation,andtheyusedatato reachtowardandsurpasschallenginggoals. 5. CAEPmusttakeresponsibleimplementationstepsthatacknowledgeprovidersbeginin differentplaces.Tobefullyaccredited,however,providersmustbeonacertainpathtoreach CAEPsmorerigorousstandardsandevidenceexpectations. 6. CAEPcan,andmust,playaprominentroletoadvanceevidenceinformedaccreditationasone ofitsprofessionalresponsibilities. CAEPaccreditationwillstrengthenthequalityofevidencemeasuringwhetherprogramsprepare effectiveteachers.Itsupportsmultiplemeasures.Itjudgesprogramsbytheimpactthatcompleters haveonP12studentlearninganddevelopment.Itrequiresproviderstoreporttheirperformance, discussitwithstakeholders,andusedatatocontinuouslymonitorandimprovetheirperformance. Commissionersareoptimisticthatadvancesinthequalityofevidenceareathand,andCAEPmust undertakesubstantialcontinuingresponsibilitiestoupgradethecurrentlyavailabledataonwhich

4|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 educatorpreparationprovidersandaccreditationrely.Theseinvolveseveralrelatedactivitiestoboth developbetterdataandtousedatabetter. TheCommissionhassetahighbar,ensuringthatattainingaccreditationstatusisameaningful achievementprovidingamarkofdistinctionforeducatorpreparationproviders,andonethatultimately ensuresthateducatorsentertheclassroomreadytohaveapositiveimpactonthelearningofall studentsandpreparethemtocompeteintodaysglobaleconomy.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|5

MessagefromtheCochairs
DearPresidentCibulka, TheCommissiononStandardsandPerformanceReportingthatyouconvenedinthespringof2012has completeditsrecommendationsfortheCAEPBoardofDirectors.WeareforwardingtheCommissions reportonbehalfofitsmembers. Ourchargewaschallenging,anditcameatatimewhenournationsleadershiphasplacedpreparation ofeducatorshighonthepolicyagenda.Thereisnationalurgencyindevelopinganeducatorworkforce thatcaneffectivelymotivateandsupportP12studentlearninganddevelopmentatglobally competitivelevels.Accreditation,ingeneral,bringsleverstothaturgenttaskthatcomplementwhat statesandpreparationprovidersareabletodo.Itisindependent,notapartofgovernment.Itfollows thedataanditapplieswisejudgment.Itmotivatesproviderstodobetter.Whenstandardsaremore rigorous,andevidenceexpectationsareraised,providerswillreachforthenewbarandsurpassit. CAEP,inparticular,hasauniqueabilitytoconvenetheentirefieldinanonadversarialenvironment conducivetoreachinganewconsensus,asevidencedbythisCommission. Sinceitsconvening,theCommissionheldthreemeetingsandoversawtheeffortsoffiveworkinggroups aseachofthemsiftedthroughscoresofresearchfindingsandwritingsonwidelysharedpractice.This pastFebruary,theCommissionpublishedareportofitsdraftrecommendationsinordertosolicit commentsbroadlyfromthepublic. Morethan500individualssubmittedcomments,completingonlinesurveyquestionsaboutthefocus andcompletenessofthestandardsandtheadequacyofevidence.Additionallettersweresenttoyou, andthedraftrecommendationsweredescribedanddiscussedwithparticipantsatseverallarge meetings.Respondentsaskedforclarificationandforgreaterspecificityaboutwhatevidencewouldbe requiredandaboutthefeasibilityofsomedataexpectations.Therewerequestionsaboutparticular recommendations,suchasthosethatraisethebarforadmissions,requireannualmeasuresonprogram results,ordefinespecificmeasurestoreporttheimpactthatcompletershaveonP12studentlearning anddevelopment.Respondentshadconcernsaboutthecapacitiesofsmallerprovidersorthosethat havelongstandingfinancialdifficulties.Theywerecuriouswhetherdifferingdatapracticesofstates mightinfluenceaprovidersabilitytobeaccreditedandsuggestedthatCAEPcouldintervene.They proposedmoreemphasisondiversity. Commissionersreviewedthepubliccommentswithcareandmadesubstantialrevisionsintheir recommendationswhileretainingthebasicthrustoftheFebruarydraft.Thestructureandmuchofthe textofthereportwasmodifiedwiththeintenttoclarifypointsintheFebruarydraft.Weappliedour collectivejudgmenttothesubstanceofthepubliccommentsandreachedconclusionsthatwebelieve bestreflectthedirectionthatCAEPshouldtakeatthispoint,andthatoutlineaspirationsforCAEPs futureresponsibilitiesandagenda. WeappreciatetheassistancethatyoumadeavailablethroughPeterEwellandtheDataTaskForceand reportsthatCAEPshouldmakewidelyavailabletoprovidersfromtheAmericanPsychological AssociationandfromtheUniversityofWisconsinValueAddedResearchCenter.CAEPstaff*provided significantandvaluableresourcestohelptheCommissionaccomplishitswork,andwethankyoufor makingthemavailabletous.

6|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Asthefinalproceedingsnearedtheirconclusion,Commissionerssharedtheanticipationexpressedby oneofourcolleagues: TheCommissionsworkwasathearttheworkofuniversitybasedteachereducation.Thatis where the majority of teachers are prepared. That is where the majority of programs are housed.Iunderstandthattheworldhaschanged,andtherearealotofstakeholdersaround our Commission table, many of them our competitors. But in a very special way, this is my issue,a higher education issue, a universitybased teacher education issue. I have been in higher education for 30 years and involved with teacher education for 20 years. During all that time, there have been numerous calls for the profession to police itself. And on occasions, we have come close to doing that. CAEP cannot do all things. It cannot address the states responsibilities to have a teacher in every classroom. It cannot solve all the real and intractable problems of urban communities and schools. But it can raise the standards for teacher education and accredit only those programs that meet the standardswhether based in universities or elsewhere. My old colleagues within universitybased teacher education and my new colleagues outside it must not step away from the responsibility and thepossibilitythatisours. WewerethrilledaswepolledtheCommissionersonebyoneandfoundthat,attheend,everysingle Commissionersupportedthefinalrecommendations.Theprofessionhascometogether.Itholdsitself tohighstandards.Itstandsforachangeinculturewewilljudgeourselvesbyevidenceandthrough demonstrationthatourcompletershavepositiveeffectsonP12studentlearninganddevelopment. OurworkontheCommissionhasbeenanexcitingandrewardingjourney.Wehavelearnedwaysto bridgeourdifferingviewsandthoseofourcolleagues.Thankyouforinvitingustobepresentatthe beginningofCAEPasitopensthedoorsonaneweraineducationaccreditation.Thisisatimeof promiselookingforwardtoagenerationofeducatorsfullypreparedtomotivateandsupportallofour childrentoachieveathighlevelsandtomaintainournationsplaceintheworld.CAEPhasapowerful roletoplay. TerryHolliday CamillaBenbow Cochair Cochair PatriciaandRodesHartDeanofEducationandHuman CommissionerofEducation,Kentucky Development,VanderbiltUniversity,PeabodyCollege DepartmentofEducation
*AspecialthankstoCommissionstaffEmersonElliottandMishaelaDurn,aswellasWorkingGroupstaffMonique LynchandElizabethVilky(Standard1);DeborahEldridgeandDanaLeonGuerrero(Standard2);EmersonElliott, PattyGarvin,andNateThomas(Standard3);ChristineCarrinoGorowaraandStephanieKowal(Standard4and recommendations);andMarkLaCellePeterson,DonnaGollnick,andZacharyEverett(Standard5).

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|7

Introduction

TheCommissionsChargeandItsOpportunity TheCAEPBoardofDirectorschargedtheCAEPCommissiononStandardsandPerformanceReporting withtransformingthepreparationofteachersbycreatingarigoroussystemofaccreditationthat demandsexcellenceandproduceseducatorswhoraisestudentachievement.Specifically,the Commissionwaschargedtodevelopaccreditationstandardsforpreparationprogramsthatarebased onevidence,thatfostercontinuousimprovementandinnovation,andthatareshapedaroundsound clinicalpractice. TheCommissionsworkhasbeengroundedinempiricalresearchor,wherethereislittleorinsufficient research,onbestpracticesandprofessionalconsensus.Ithasinterpreteditsmandatetoencompassthe fullscopeoftheeducationalchallengefacingournation'steachers.America'steachersmustnotonly raisestudentachievementforsomelearners,buttheyarechallengedtodosoforalllearnersinanation withanincreasinglydiverseP12studentpopulation. ThechallengeforAmericaneducationwasrecentlyposedcogentlyintheEquityandExcellence CommissionsreporttotheU.S.SecretaryofEducation: While some young Americansmost of them white and affluentare getting a truly world class education, those who attend schools in high poverty neighborhoods are getting an education that more closely approximates school in developing nations. In reading, for example, although U. S. children in lowpoverty schools rank at the top of the world, those in our highestpoverty schools are performing on a par with children in the worlds lowest achieving countries. With the highest poverty rate in the developed world, amplified by the inadequateeducationreceivedbymanychildreninlowincomeschools,theUnitedStatesis threateningitsownfuture.2 Thecurrentpolicycontextforeducationmakesthismomentapivotalone,offeringanunprecedented opportunityfortheprofessiontoreformitself.CAEPfallsattheintersectionofeducationpolicyand practiceoftheeducationprofession.Itsleadershavesetchallenginggoalstomakeaccreditationmore effectivebyraisingitsrigorand,simultaneously,byfosteringinnovation.Throughitsaccreditation functionsithasleveragethatcomplementswhatotherorganizationsandgovernmentalbodiescando. WhatmakesCAEPsbeginningsevenstrongeristheseachangeintheeducationpolicylandscape.This momentischaracterizedbythefortuitousjunctureofgovernmentalpoliciesandpractices:anowwidely heldperspectivethatwellpreparedteachersandothereducationprofessionalsarecriticalforincreased learningintheclassroomandtheadventofCAEPasthenewsoleeducatorpreparationaccreditor.

8|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 TheCommissionsResponse ThepotentialforCAEPtomakeadecisiveimpactoneducatorpreparationhasmotivatedthe Commissionerssearchforappropriatewaystomaximizetheconsiderableleveragethatthe accreditationprocesscancreate.Commissionersidentifiedfourespeciallycriticalpointsofleveragefor CAEP: 1. BuildpartnershipsandstrongclinicalexperiencesEducatorpreparationprovidersand collaboratingschoolsanddistrictsbringcomplementaryexperiencesthat,joinedtogether, promisefarstrongerpreparationprograms. 2. RaiseandassurecandidatequalityFromrecruitmentandadmission,throughpreparationand atexit,educatorpreparationprovidersmusttakeresponsibilitytoprepareaneducation workforcethatismoreableandmorerepresentativeofAmericasdiversepopulation. 3. IncludeallprovidersCAEPmustencourageinnovationsinpreparationbywelcomingallofthe variedprovidersthatseekaccreditationandmeetchallenginglevelsofperformance. 4. Andsurmountingallothers,insistthatpreparationbejudgedbyoutcomesandimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentResultsmatter;effortisnotenough. Thesepointsofleveragearenotaccreditationbusinessasusual,nordotheyrepresentmarginal changesfromeducationaccreditationinthepast.Exercisingthemcanaddvaluetowhatstatesare tryingtoaccomplishwiththeirreformsinpreparationpolicy,reinforcingtheeffortsofleadingstates.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|9

AccreditationStandards andRecommendations
TheCommissionadoptedastructureforthestandardsthatbeginswiththreeareasofteacher preparationidentifiedbytheNationalAcademyofSciences2010report,PreparingTeachers:Building EvidenceforSoundPolicy.TheAcademypanelfoundthatexistingresearchprovidessomeguidance regardingfactorslikelytohavethestrongesteffectsonoutcomesforstudents:contentknowledge; fieldexperience;andthequalityofteachercandidates.3 Adaptingthatguidancetoitstask,thefirstthreestandardsrecommendedbytheCommissionare: Standard1:ContentandPedagogicalKnowledge Standard2:ClinicalPartnershipsandPractice Standard3:CandidateQuality,Recruitment,andSelectivity TheultimategoalofeducatorpreparationistheimpactofprogramcompletersonP12studentlearning anddevelopment,asframedbytheCommissioninthefourthstandard.Thatimpactwouldbe demonstratedbothdirectlythroughmultiplemeasuresandindirectlybythesatisfactionofthe completersandtheiremployers. Standard4:ProgramImpact Finally,theCommissionexploredimportantfunctionsofanaccreditingbodythatarefashionedaround attributesofhighperformingeducationorganizations.Thesearesupportedbyresearchoneffective managementand,especially,bytheBaldrigeeducationawardcriteria,aswellasrecenttrendsandnew approachesamongaccreditors.Thefifthstandardandtherecommendationsonannualreportingand levelsofaccreditationarebuiltonthesesources: Standard5:ProviderQualityAssuranceandContinuousImprovement Recommendation:AnnualReportingandCAEPMonitoring Recommendation:LevelsofAccreditationDecisions

CommissionRecommendationsforStandards
Standard1: CONTENTANDPEDAGOGICALKNOWLEDGE Theproviderensuresthatcandidatesdevelopadeepunderstandingofthecriticalconceptsand principlesoftheirdisciplineand,bycompletion,areabletousedisciplinespecificpracticesflexiblyto advancethelearningofallstudentstowardattainmentofcollegeandcareerreadinessstandards. CandidateKnowledge,Skills,andProfessionalDispositions 1.1 Candidatesdemonstrateanunderstandingofthe10InTASCstandardsattheappropriate progressionlevel(s)4inthefollowingcategories:thelearnerandlearning;content;instructional practice;andprofessionalresponsibility.

10|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 ProviderResponsibilities 1.2 Providersensurethatcompletersuseresearchandevidencetodevelopanunderstandingofthe teachingprofessionandusebothtomeasuretheirP12studentsprogressandtheirown professionalpractice. 1.3 Providersensurethatcompletersapplycontentandpedagogicalknowledgeasreflectedin outcomeassessmentsinresponsetostandardsofSpecializedProfessionalAssociations(SPA),the NationalBoardforProfessionalTeachingStandards(NBPTS),states,orotheraccreditingbodies (e.g.,NationalAssociationofSchoolsofMusicNASM). 1.4 ProvidersensurethatcompletersdemonstrateskillsandcommitmentthataffordallP12students accesstorigorouscollegeandcareerreadystandards(e.g.,NextGenerationScienceStandards, NationalCareerReadinessCertificate,CommonCoreStateStandards). 1.5 Providersensurethatcompletersmodelandapplytechnologystandardsastheydesign,implement andassesslearningexperiencestoengagestudentsandimprovelearning;andenrichprofessional practice. Glossary AllP12students:DefinedaschildrenoryouthattendingP12schoolsincluding,butnotlimitedto, studentswithdisabilitiesorexceptionalities,studentswhoaregifted,andstudentswhorepresent diversitybasedonethnicity,race,socioeconomicstatus,gender,language,religion,sexualidentification, and/orgeographicorigin. Candidate:Inthisreport,thetermcandidatereferstoindividualspreparingforprofessionaleducation positions. Completer:Atermtoembracecandidatesexitingfromdegreeprogramsandalsocandidatesexiting fromotherhighereducationprogramsorpreparationprogramsconductedbyalternativeprovidersthat mayormaynotofferacertificateordegree. Note:InStandard1,thesubjectsofcomponentsarecandidates.Thespecificknowledgeandskills describedwilldevelopoverthecourseofthepreparationprogramandmaybeassessedatany point,somenearadmission,othersatkeytransitionssuchasentrytoclinicalexperiencesandstill othersnearcandidateexitaspreparationiscompleted. Provider:Educatorpreparationprovider(EPP)Aninclusivetermreferringtothesponsoring organizationforpreparation,whetheritisaninstitutionofhighereducation,adistrictorstate sponsoredprogram,oranalternativepathwayorganization. Rationale Thisstandardassertstheimportanceofastrongcontentbackgroundandfoundationofpedagogical knowledgeforallcandidates.Teachingiscomplexandpreparationmustprovideopportunitiesfor candidatestoacquireknowledgeandskillsthatcanmoveallP12studentssignificantlyforwardin theiracademicachievements,inarticulatingthepurposeofeducationintheirlivesandinbuilding independentcompetenceforlifelonglearning.Suchabackgroundincludesexperiencesthatdevelop deepunderstandingofmajorconceptsandprincipleswithinthecandidatesfield,includingcollegeand careerreadyexpectations.5Movingforward,collegeandcareerreadystandardscanbeexpectedto CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|11

includeadditionaldisciplines,underscoringtheneedtohelpstudentsmasterarangeoflearnergoals conveyedwithinandacrossdisciplines.Contentandpedagogicalknowledgeexpectedofcandidatesis articulatedthroughtheInTASCstandards.Thesestandardsare: Standard#1:LearnerDevelopment.Theteacherunderstandshowlearnersgrowanddevelop, recognizingthatpatternsoflearninganddevelopmentvaryindividuallywithinandacrossthe cognitive,linguistic,social,emotional,andphysicalareas,anddesignsandimplements developmentallyappropriateandchallenginglearningexperiences. Standard#2:LearningDifferences.Theteacherusesunderstandingofindividualdifferencesand diverseculturesandcommunitiestoensureinclusivelearningenvironmentsthatenableeach learnertomeethighstandards. Standard#3:LearningEnvironments.Theteacherworkswithotherstocreateenvironments thatsupportindividualandcollaborativelearning,andthatencouragepositivesocial interaction,activeengagementinlearning,andselfmotivation. Standard#4:ContentKnowledge.Theteacherunderstandsthecentralconcepts,toolsof inquiry,andstructuresofthediscipline(s)heorsheteachesandcreateslearningexperiences thatmakethedisciplineaccessibleandmeaningfulforlearnerstoassuremasteryofthe content. Standard#5:ApplicationofContent.Theteacherunderstandshowtoconnectconceptsanduse differingperspectivestoengagelearnersincriticalthinking,creativity,andcollaborative problemsolvingrelatedtoauthenticlocalandglobalissues. Standard#6:Assessment.Theteacherunderstandsandusesmultiplemethodsofassessmentto engagelearnersintheirowngrowth,tomonitorlearnerprogress,andtoguidetheteachers andlearnersdecisionmaking. Standard#7:PlanningforInstruction.Theteacherplansinstructionthatsupportseverystudent inmeetingrigorouslearninggoalsbydrawinguponknowledgeofcontentareas,curriculum, crossdisciplinaryskills,andpedagogy,aswellasknowledgeoflearnersandthecommunity context. Standard#8:InstructionalStrategies.Theteacherunderstandsandusesavarietyof instructionalstrategiestoencouragelearnerstodevelopdeepunderstandingofcontentareas andtheirconnections,andtobuildskillstoapplyknowledgeinmeaningfulways. Standard#9:ProfessionalLearningandEthicalPractice.Theteacherengagesinongoing professionallearningandusesevidencetocontinuallyevaluatehis/herpractice,particularlythe effectsofhis/herchoicesandactionsonothers(learners,families,otherprofessionals,andthe community),andadaptspracticetomeettheneedsofeachlearner. Standard#10:LeadershipandCollaboration.Theteacherseeksappropriateleadershiproles andopportunitiestotakeresponsibilityforstudentlearninganddevelopment,tocollaborate withlearners,families,colleagues,otherschoolprofessionals,andcommunitymembersto ensurelearnergrowth,andtoadvancetheprofession. Contentknowledgedescribesthedepthofunderstandingofcriticalconcepts,theories,skills,processes, principles,andstructuresthatconnectandorganizeideaswithinafield.6Researchindicatesthat studentslearnmorewhentheirteachershaveastrongfoundationofcontentknowledge.7 [T]eachers need to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly so they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate one idea to another, and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how ideas connect across fields and to everyday life. This kind of understanding provides a foundation for pedagogical content knowledgethatenablesteacherstomakeideasaccessibletoothers.8

12|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 TheseessentiallinksbetweeninstructionandcontentareespeciallyclearinDarlingHammonds descriptionofwhattheCommonCoreStateStandardsmeanbydeeperlearning: Anunderstandingofthemeaningandrelevanceofideastoconcreteproblems Anabilitytoapplycoreconceptsandmodesofinquirytocomplexrealworldtasks Acapacitytotransferknowledgeandskillstonewsituations,tobuildonandusethem Abilitiestocommunicateideasandtocollaborateinproblemsolving Anongoingabilitytolearntolearn9 Pedagogicalcontentknowledgeinteachingincludes: core activities of teaching, such as figuring out what students know; choosing and managing representations of ideas; appraising, selecting and modifying textbooks; . . . deciding among alternative courses of action and analyze(ing) the subject matter knowledge and insight entailed in these activities.10 It is crucial to good teaching and studentunderstanding.11 Thedevelopmentofpedagogicalcontentknowledgeinvolvesashiftinteachersunderstandingfrom comprehensionofsubjectmatterforthemselves,toadvancingtheirstudentslearningthrough presentationofsubjectmatterinavarietyofwaysthatareappropriatetodifferentsituations reorganizingandpartitioningitanddevelopingactivities,metaphors,exercises,examplesand demonstrationssothatitcanbegraspedbystudents.12 Understandingofpedagogicalcontentknowledgeiscomplementedbyknowledgeoflearnerswhere teachingbegins.Teachersmustunderstandthatlearninganddevelopmentalpatternsvaryamong individuals,thatlearnersbringuniqueindividualdifferencestothelearningprocess,andthatlearners needsupportiveandsafelearningenvironmentstothrive.Teachersprofessionalknowledgeincludes thewaysinwhichcognitive,linguistic,social,emotional,andphysicaldevelopmentoccurs.13 Neuroscienceisinfluencingeducation,andfutureeducatorsshouldbewellversedinfindingsfrombrain research,includinghowtofacilitatelearningforstudentswithvaryingcapacities,experiences,strengths andapproachestolearning. Tobeeffective,teachersalsomustbepreparedtocollaboratewithfamiliestosupportstudent success.14Whenteachersunderstandfamiliesandcommunicateandbuildrelationshipswiththem, studentsbenefit.Manystudiesconfirmthatstrongparentteacherrelationshipsrelatetopositive studentoutcomesforstudents,suchashealthysocialdevelopment,highstudentachievementandhigh ratesofcollegeenrollment.15Thus,bygivingteachersthesupporttheyneedtoworkwithfamilies, educatorpreparationproviderscanhaveanevengreaterimpactonstudentlearninganddevelopment. TheCommissionsdevelopmentofthisstandardanditscomponentswasinfluencedespeciallybythe InTASCModelCoreTeachingStandards,theCommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative,16andtheNational BoardforProfessionalTeachingStandardsFiveCorePropositions.17AdditionallytheCommissionused theworkoftheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)18andtheHarvardFamily ResearchProject(HFRP).19

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|13

Standard2: CLINICALPARTNERSHIPSANDPRACTICE Theproviderensuresthateffectivepartnershipsandhighqualityclinicalpracticearecentralto preparationsothatcandidatesdeveloptheknowledge,skills,andprofessionaldispositionsnecessary todemonstratepositiveimpactonallP12studentslearninganddevelopment. PartnershipsforClinicalPreparation 2.1 PartnerscoconstructmutuallybeneficialP12schoolandcommunityarrangements,including technologybasedcollaborations,forclinicalpreparationandshareresponsibilityforcontinuous improvementofcandidatepreparation.Partnershipsforclinicalpreparationcanfollowarangeof forms,participants,andfunctions.Theyestablishmutuallyagreeableexpectationsforcandidate entry,preparation,andexit;ensurethattheoryandpracticearelinked;maintaincoherenceacross clinicalandacademiccomponentsofpreparation;andshareaccountabilityforcandidate outcomes. ClinicalEducators 2.2 Partnerscoselect,prepare,evaluate,support,andretainhighqualityclinicaleducators,both providerandschoolbased,whodemonstrateapositiveimpactoncandidatesdevelopmentand P12studentlearninganddevelopment.Incollaborationwiththeirpartners,providersusemultiple indicatorsandappropriatetechnologybasedapplicationstoestablish,maintain,andrefinecriteria forselection,professionaldevelopment,performanceevaluation,continuousimprovement,and retentionofclinicaleducatorsinallclinicalplacementsettings. ClinicalExperiences 2.3 Theproviderworkswithpartnerstodesignclinicalexperiencesofsufficientdepth,breadth, diversity,coherence,anddurationtoensurethatcandidatesdemonstratetheirdeveloping effectivenessandpositiveimpactonallstudentslearninganddevelopment.Clinicalexperiences, includingtechnologyenhancedlearningopportunities,arestructuredtohavemultiple performancebasedassessmentsatkeypointswithintheprogramtodemonstratecandidates developmentoftheknowledge,skills,andprofessionaldispositions,asdelineatedinStandard1, thatareassociatedwithapositiveimpactonthelearninganddevelopmentofallP12students. Glossary ClinicalEducators:AllEPPandP12schoolbasedindividuals,includingclassroomteachers,whoassess, support,anddevelopacandidatesknowledge,skills,orprofessionaldispositionsatsomestageinthe clinicalexperiences. Partner:Organizations,businesses,communitygroups,agencies,schools,districts,and/orEPPs specificallyinvolvedindesigning,implementing,andassessingtheclinicalexperience. Partnership:Mutuallybeneficialagreementamongvariouspartnersinwhichallparticipatingmembers engageinandcontributetogoalsforthepreparationofeducationprofessionals.Thismayinclude examplessuchaspipelineinitiatives,ProfessionalDevelopmentSchools,andpartnernetworks. Stakeholder:Partners,organizations,businesses,communitygroups,agencies,schools,districts,and/or EPPsinterestedincandidatepreparationoreducation. 14|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Rationale Educationisapracticeprofessionandpreparationforcareersineducationmustcreatenurturing opportunitiesforaspiringcandidatestodevelop,practice,anddemonstratethecontentand pedagogicalknowledgeandskillsthatpromotelearningforallstudents.Thesedevelopmental opportunities/experiencestakeplaceparticularlyinschoolbasedsituations,butmaybeaugmentedby communitybasedandvirtualsituations.The2010NCATEpanelreport,TransformingTeacherEducation ThroughClinicalPractice,20identifiedimportantdimensionsofclinicalpracticeandtheCommission drewfromthePanelsrecommendationstostructurethethreecomponentsofthisstandard. Educatorpreparationproviders(EPPs)seekingaccreditationshouldhavestrongcollaborative partnershipswithschooldistrictsandindividualschoolpartners,aswellasothercommunity stakeholders,inordertopursuemutuallybeneficialandagreedupongoalsforthepreparationof educationprofessionals.Thesecollaborativepartnershipsareasharedendeavormeanttofocusdually ontheimprovementofstudentlearninganddevelopmentandonthepreparationofteachersforthis goal.Thepartnersshallworktogethertodeterminenotonlythevaluesandexpectationsofprogram development,implementation,assessment,andcontinuousimprovement,butalsothedivisionof responsibilitiesamongthevariouspartnershipstakeholders.Ataminimum,thedistrictand/orschool leadershipandtheEPPshouldbeapartofthepartnership;otherpartnersmightincludebusinessand communitymembers. Characteristicsofeffectivepartnershipsinclude:mutualtrustandrespect;sufficienttimetodevelopand strengthenrelationshipsatalllevels;sharedresponsibilityandaccountabilityamongpartners,and periodicformativeevaluationofactivitiesamongpartners.21DarlingHammondandBaratz Snowden22callforstrongrelationshipsbetweenuniversitiesandschoolstosharestandardsofgood teachingthatareconsistentacrosscoursesandclinicalwork.Thisrelationshipcouldapply,aswell,toall providers.The2010NCATEpanelproposedpartnershipsthatarestrategicinmeetingpartnersneedsby definingcommonwork,sharedresponsibility,authority,andaccountability. ClinicaleducatorsareallEPPandP12schoolbasedindividuals,includingclassroomteachers,who assess,supportanddevelopacandidatesknowledge,skills,andprofessionaldispositionsatsomestate intheclinicalexperiences.Literatureindicatestheimportanceofthequalityofclinicaleducators,both schoolandproviderbased,toensurethelearningofcandidatesandP12students.23Transforming TeacherEducationThroughClinicalPracticedescribedhighqualityclinicalexperiencesasonesinwhich bothprovidersandtheirpartnersrequirecandidatesupervisionandmentoringbycertifiedclinical educatorsdrawnfromdisciplinespecific,pedagogical,andP12professionalswhoaretrainedto workwithandprovidefeedbacktocandidates.Clinicaleducatorsshouldbeaccountableforthe performanceofthecandidatestheysupervise,aswellasthatofthestudentstheyteach.24 Highqualityclinicalexperiencesareearly,ongoingandtakeplaceinavarietyofschoolandcommunity basedsettings,aswellasthroughsimulationsandothervirtualopportunities(forexample,onlinechats withstudents).Candidatesobserve,assist,tutor,instructandmayconductresearch.Theymaybe studentteachersorinterns.25Theseexperiencesintegrateapplicationsoftheoryfrompedagogical coursesormodulesinP12orcommunitysettingsandarealignedwiththeschoolbasedcurriculum (e.g.,NextGenerationScienceStandards,collegeandcareerreadystandards,CommonCoreState Standards).Theyoffermultipleopportunitiesforcandidatestodevelop,practice,demonstrate,and reflectuponclinicalandacademiccomponentsofpreparation,aswellasopportunitiestodevelop,

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|15

practice,anddemonstrateevidencebased,pedagogicalpracticesthatimprovestudentlearningand development,asdescribedinStandard1. Themembersofthe2010Panelonclinicalpreparationandpartnershipsconsultedbothresearch resourcesandprofessionalconsensusreportsinshapingtheirconclusionsandrecommendations, includingproposeddesignprinciplesforclinicalexperiences.26Amongtheseare:(1)astudentlearning anddevelopmentfocus,(2)clinicalpracticethatisintegratedthroughouteveryfacetofpreparationina dynamicway,(3)continuousmonitoringandjudgingofcandidateprogressonthebasisofdata,(4)a curriculumandexperiencesthatpermitcandidatestointegratecontentandabroadrangeofeffective teachingpracticesandtobecomeinnovatorsandproblemsolvers,and(5)aninteractiveprofessional communitywithopportunitiesforcollaborationandpeerfeedback.Howey27alsosuggestsseveral principles,includingtightlywoveneducationtheoryandclassroompractice,aswellasplacementof candidatesincohorts.AnETSreportproposedclinicalpreparationexperiencesthatofferopportunities forActualhandsonabilityandskilltouse...typesofknowledgetoengagestudentssuccessfullyin learningandmastery.28ThereportoftheNationalResearchCouncil(2010)concludedthatclinical experienceswerecriticallyimportanttoteacherpreparationbutthattheresearch,todate,doesnottell uswhatspecificexperiencesorsequenceofexperiencesaremostlikelytoresultinmoreeffective beginningteachers.29 Untiltheresearchbaseforclinicalpracticesandpartnershipsismoredefinitive,wisdomofpractice dictatesthattheprofessionmovemoreforcefullyintodeepeningpartnerships;intoclarifyingand, wherenecessary,improvingthequalityofclinicaleducatorswhopreparethefieldsnewpractitioners andintodeliveringfieldandclinicalexperiencesthatcontributetothedevelopmentofeffective educators. Standard3: CANDIDATEQUALITY,RECRUITMENT,ANDSELECTIVITY Theproviderdemonstratesthatthequalityofcandidatesisacontinuingandpurposefulpartofits responsibilityfromrecruitment,atadmission,throughtheprogressionofcoursesandclinical experiences,andtodecisionsthatcompletersarepreparedtoteacheffectivelyandarerecommended forcertification.Theproviderdemonstratesthatdevelopmentofcandidatequalityisthegoalof educatorpreparationinallphasesoftheprogram.Thisprocessisultimatelydeterminedbya programsmeetingofStandard4. PlanforRecruitmentofDiverseCandidateswhoMeetEmploymentNeeds 3.1 Theproviderpresentsplansandgoalstorecruitandsupportcompletionofhighqualitycandidates fromabroadrangeofbackgroundsanddiversepopulationstoaccomplishtheirmission.The admittedpoolofcandidatesreflectsthediversityofAmericasP12students.Theprovider demonstrateseffortstoknowandaddresscommunity,state,national,regional,orlocalneedsfor hardtostaffschoolsandshortagefields,currently,STEM,Englishlanguagelearning,andstudents withdisabilities. AdmissionStandardsIndicateThatCandidatesHaveHighAcademicAchievementAndAbility 3.2 Theprovidersetsadmissionsrequirements,includingCAEPminimumcriteriaorthestates minimumcriteria,whicheverarehigher,andgathersdatatomonitorapplicantsandtheselected poolofcandidates.Theproviderensuresthattheaveragegradepointaverageofitsaccepted cohortofcandidatesmeetsorexceedstheCAEPminimumof3.0,andthegroupaverage

16|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 performanceonnationallynormedability/achievementassessmentssuchasACT,SAT,orGRE: isinthetop50percentfrom20162017; isinthetop40percentofthedistributionfrom20182019;and isinthetop33percentofthedistributionby2020.30 IfanystatecanmeettheCAEPstandards,asspecifiedabove,bydemonstratingacorrespondencein scoresbetweenthestatenormedassessmentsandnationallynormedability/achievement assessments,theneducatorpreparationprovidersfromthatstatewillbeabletoutilizetheirstate assessmentsuntil2020.CAEPwillworkwithstatesthroughthistransition. Overtime,aprogrammaydevelopareliable,validmodelthatusesadmissionscriteriaotherthan thosestatedinthisstandard.Inthiscase,theadmittedcohortgroupmeanonthesecriteriamust meetorexceedthestandardthathasbeenshowntopositivelycorrelatewithmeasuresofP12 studentlearninganddevelopment. Theproviderdemonstratesthatthestandardforhighacademicachievementandabilityismet throughmultipleevaluationsandsourcesofevidence.Theproviderreportsthemeanandstandard deviationforthegroup. AdditionalSelectivityFactors 3.3Educatorpreparationprovidersestablishandmonitorattributesanddispositionsbeyondacademic abilitythatcandidatesmustdemonstrateatadmissionsandduringtheprogram.Theprovider selectscriteria,describesthemeasuresusedandevidenceofthereliabilityandvalidityofthose measures,andreportsdatathatshowhowtheacademicandnonacademicfactorspredict candidateperformanceintheprogramandeffectiveteaching. SelectivityDuringPreparation 3.4 Theprovidercreatescriteriaforprogramprogressionandmonitorscandidatesadvancementfrom admissionsthroughcompletion.Allcandidatesdemonstratetheabilitytoteachtocollegeand careerreadystandards.Providerspresentmultipleformsofevidencetoindicatecandidates developingcontentknowledge,pedagogicalcontentknowledge,pedagogicalskills,andthe integrationoftechnologyinallofthesedomains.31 SelectionAtCompletion 3.5 Beforetheproviderrecommendsanycompletingcandidateforlicensureorcertification,it documentsthatthecandidatehasreachedahighstandardforcontentknowledgeinthefields wherecertificationissoughtandcanteacheffectivelywithpositiveimpactsonP12student learninganddevelopment. 3.6 Beforetheproviderrecommendsanycompletingcandidateforlicensureorcertification,it documentsthatthecandidateunderstandstheexpectationsoftheprofession,includingcodesof ethics,professionalstandardsofpractice,andrelevantlawsandpolicies.CAEPmonitorsthe developmentofmeasuresthatassesscandidatessuccessandrevisesstandardsinlightofnew results.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|17

Glossary Cohort:Agroupofcandidatesadmittedatthesametime,e.g.,aclassenteringinafallsemester. Groupaverage:TheGPAandstandardizedtestscoresareaveragedforallmembersofacohortorclass ofadmittedcandidates.Averagingdoesnotrequirethateverycandidatemeetthespecifiedscore.Thus, theremaybearangeofcandidatesgradesandscoresonstandardizedtests. STEM:Science,technology,engineeringandmathematics Rationale Educatorpreparationproviders(EPP)haveacriticalresponsibilitytoensurethequalityoftheir candidates.Thisresponsibilitycontinuesfrompurposefulrecruitmentthathelpsfulfilltheproviders missiontoadmissionsselectivitythatbuildsanableanddiversepoolofcandidates,throughmonitoring ofcandidateprogressandprovidingnecessarysupport,todemonstratingthatcandidatesareproficient atcompletionandthattheyareselectedforemploymentopportunitiesthatareavailableinareas servedbytheprovider.TheintegrationofrecruitmentandselectivityasEPPresponsibilitiestoensure qualityisemphasizedina2010NationalResearchCouncilreport: The quality of new teachers entering the field depends not only on the quality of the preparation they receive, but also on the capacity of preparation programs to attract and select academically able people who have the potential to be effective teachers. Attracting able,highqualitycandidatestoteachingisacriticalgoal.32 ThemajorityofAmericaneducatorsarewhite,middleclass,andfemale.33Themakeupofthenations teacherworkforcehasnotkeptupwithchangingstudentdemographics.Atthenationallevel,students ofcolormakeupmorethan40percentofthepublicschoolpopulation,whileteachersofcolorareonly 17percentoftheteachingforce.34Themismatchhasconsequences.Dee;Goldhaber,andHansen;and Hanushekandcolleagues35foundthatstudentachievementispositivelyimpactedbyaracial/ethnicity matchbetweenteachersandstudents. Whilerecruitmentoftalentedminoritycandidatesisatimeandlaborintensiveprocess,36teachersof colorandculturallycompetentteachersmustbeactivelyrecruitedandsupported.37Recruitmentcan bothincreasethequalityofselectedcandidatesandoffsetpotentiallydeleteriouseffectsondiversity frommoreselectivecriteriaeitheratadmissionsorthroughoutaprogram.38Successfulprograms recruitminorityteacherswithahighlikelihoodofbeingeffectiveintheclassroomandconcentrateon findingcandidateswithacoresetofcompetenciesthatwilltranslatetosuccessintheclassroom.39 Thereisevidencethatprovidersofalternativepathwaystoteachinghavebeenmoresuccessfulin attractingnonwhitecandidates.Feistritzerreportsalternativeprovidercohortsthatare30percent nonwhite,comparedwith13percentintraditionalprograms.40 The2010NCATEpanelonclinicalpartnershipsadvocatedattentiontoemploymentneedsasawayto securegreateralignmentbetweentheteachermarketandareasofteacherpreparation.41TheU.S. DepartmentofEducationregularlyreleaseslistsofteachershortagesbybothcontentarea specializationandstate.42Somestatesalsopublishsupplyanddemandtrendsandforecastsandother informationonmarketneeds.TheselistscouldassistEPPsinshapingtheirprogramofferingsandin settingrecruitmentgoals. Thereisabroadpublicconsensusthatprovidersshouldattractandselectablecandidateswhowill becomeeffectiveteachers.The2011GallupPhiDeltaKappaneducationpoll43reportedthat76percent

18|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 oftheU.S.adultpublicagreedthathighachievinghighschoolstudentsshouldberecruitedtobecome teachers.Anotherexampleisfoundina2012AFTreportonteacherpreparation,recommendingsetting GPArequirementsat3.0,SATsat1100andACTscoresat24.0inordertoattractacademicallycapable studentswithauthenticcommitmenttoworkwithchildren.44 ResearcherssuchasBall,Rowan,andHill;Floden,Wayne,andYoung45concludethatacademicquality, especiallyinverbalabilityandmathknowledge,impactsteachereffectiveness.AstudyforMcKinsey andCompany46foundthathighperformingcountrieshadarigorousselectionprocesssimilartothatof medicalschools.Whitehurst47suggeststhateducatorpreparationprovidersshouldbemuchmore selectiveintermsoftheircandidatescognitiveabilities.Whenlookingatthecostofteacherselection, Levin48foundthatrecruitingandretainingteacherswithhigherverbalscoresisfivetotentimesas effectiveperdollarofteacherexpenditureinraisingachievementscoresofstudentsasthestrategyof obtainingteacherswithmoreexperience.Rockoff,Jacob,Kane,andStaigerconcludedthatteachers cognitiveandnoncognitiveskills...haveamoderatelylargeandstatisticallysignificantrelationshipwith studentandteacheroutcomes,particularlywithstudenttestscores.49 Programsdonotallstartatthesameplaceintheirhistoryofrecruitinganacademicallystrongand/or diversecandidatepool.Someprogramswillneedtosetgoalsandmovesuccessivelytowardachieving them.Asbetterperformanceassessmentsaredevelopedandasvariouslicensuretestsareshowntobe predictorsofteacherperformanceand/orstudentlearninganddevelopment,CAEPmaybeabletoput moreemphasisonexitcriteriaratherthanonentrancecriteria.IrrespectiveofchangesCAEPmaymake, thisdoesnotreducetheprogramsresponsibilitytorecruitadiversecandidatepoolthatmirrorsthe demographyofthestudentpopulationserved. Thereisstrongsupportfromtheprofessionalcommunitythatqualitiesoutsideofacademicabilityare associatedwithteachereffectiveness.Theseincludegrit,theabilitytoworkwithparents,theability tomotivate,communicationskills,focus,purpose,andleadership,amongothers.Duckworth,etal, foundthattheachievementofdifficultgoalsentailsnotonlytalentbutalsothesustainedandfocused applicationoftalentovertime.50ATeachforAmerica(TFA)studyconcludedthatateachersacademic achievement,leadershipexperience,andperseveranceareassociatedwithstudentgainsinmath,while leadershipexperienceandcommitmenttotheTFAmissionwereassociatedwithgainsinEnglish.51 Danielsonassertsthatteacherlearningbecomesmoreactivethroughexperimentationandinquiry,as wellasthroughwriting,dialogue,andquestioning.52Inaddition,teacherevaluationsinvolve observationsofclassroomteaching,whichcanengageteachersinthoseactivitiesknowntopromote learning,namely,selfassessment,reflectiononpractice,andprofessionalconversation.Theseother attributes,dispositionsandabilitieslendthemselvestoproviderinnovation.Someprovidersmight emphasizecertainattributesbecauseoftheemploymentfieldormarketforwhichtheyarepreparing teachers. Researchhasnotempiricallyestablishedaparticularsetofnonacademicqualitiesthatteachersshould possess.Therearenumerousstudiesthatlistdifferentcharacteristics,sometimesreferringtosimilar characteristicsbydifferentlabels.Furthermore,theredoesnotseemtobeaclearmeasureforthese nonacademicqualities,althoughafewofthemhavescalesandothermeasuresthathavebeen developed.TheCAEPCommissionrecognizestheongoingdevelopmentofthisknowledgebaseand recommendsthatCAEPrevisecriteriaasevidenceemerges.TheCommissionrecognizestheInTASC standardssetofdispositionsasapromisingareaofresearch.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|19

Severalpiecesofresearch,includingBallsworkinmathematicseducation,53theMETstudyon componentsofteaching,54andskillsapproachessuchasLemovsTeachLikeaChampion,55assertthere areimportantcriticalpedagogicalstrategiesthatdevelopovertime.Henry,56NoellandBurns,57and Whitehurst58allfoundthat,ingeneral,teachersbecamemoreeffectiveastheygainedexperience.Both research,assynthesizedbytheNationalResearchCouncil,59andprofessionalconsensus,asrepresented bytheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficersInTASCstandards,60indicatethatthedevelopmentof effectiveteachingisaprocess. Therearevarioussetsofcriteriaandstandardsforeffectiveteachingandteachereducation,many includingperformancetasks61andartifactscreatedbythecandidate.62Thesestandards,likethoseof theCommission,haveacentralfocusonP12outcomes.Studentlearninganddevelopmentshouldbea criterionforselectingcandidatesforadvancementthroughoutpreparation.Theevidenceindicatorsthat appearintheAppendixcanbeusedtomonitorandguidecandidatesgrowthduringaprogram. Standard4isbuiltaroundtheultimateimpactthatprogramcompletershavewhentheyareactually employedintheclassroomorothereducatorpositions. Manyprofessionaleffortstodefinestandardsforteaching(e.g.,InTASC;NCTQ,andobservational measurescoveredintheMeasuresofEffectiveTeachingproject)recommendthatcandidatesknowand practiceethicsandstandardsofprofessionalpractice,asdescribedinthesenationalstandards(suchas thoseinInTASCstandard9and9(o)).TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPstronglyencourage additionalresearchtodefineprofessionalpracticesofP12educatorsandhowthesepractices,beliefs, andattitudesrelatetostudentlearninganddevelopment.(SeealsoCAEPcomponent1.4onequity responsibilities.) However,manymeasuresofbothacademicandnonacademicfactorsassociatedwithhighquality teachingandlearningneedtobestudiedforreliability,validity,andfairness.CAEPshouldencourage developmentandresearchrelatedtothesemeasures.Itwouldbeshortsightedtospecifyparticular metricsnarrowlybecauseofthenowfastevolvinginterestin,insistenceon,anddevelopmentofnew andmuchstrongerpreparationassessments,observationalmeasures,studentsurveys,anddescriptive metrics.Instead,CAEPshouldaskthatprovidersmakeacasethatthedatausedindecisionmakingare valid,reliable,andfair.Statesandlocalitiesaredevelopingtheirownsystemsofmonitoring,andboth providersandCAEPshouldobtaindatafromthesesystems,whereavailable,touseasvaluableexternal indicatorsforcontinuousimprovement. CAEPshouldmonitortheimpactofthesenewadmissionstandards.TheCommissionrecommendsthat CAEPdevelopanexpertadvisorycommitteetomonitordevelopmentsinassessment,outcomes research,andotherevidencethatwillinfluencetheCAEPstandards.Suchacommitteewouldmake recommendationsontheevolutionofthestandardsandassessmentsusedinprogramimprovement andaccreditation.

20|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Standard4: PROGRAMIMPACT TheproviderdemonstratestheimpactofitscompletersonP12studentlearninganddevelopment, classroominstruction,andschools,andthesatisfactionofitscompleterswiththerelevanceand effectivenessoftheirpreparation. ImpactonP12StudentLearningandDevelopment 4.1 Theproviderdocuments,usingmultiplemeasures,thatprogramcompleterscontributetoan expectedlevelofstudentlearninggrowth.Multiplemeasuresshallincludeallavailablegrowth measures(includingvalueaddedmeasures,studentgrowthpercentiles,andstudentlearningand developmentobjectives)requiredbythestateforitsteachersandavailabletoeducator preparationproviders,otherstatesupportedP12impactmeasures,andanyothermeasures employedbytheprovider. IndicatorsofTeachingEffectiveness 4.2 Theproviderdemonstrates,throughstructuredandvalidatedobservationinstrumentsandstudent surveys,thatcompleterseffectivelyapplytheprofessionalknowledge,skills,anddispositionsthat thepreparationexperiencesweredesignedtoachieve. SatisfactionofEmployers 4.3. Theproviderdemonstrates,usingmeasuresthatresultinvalidandreliabledataandincluding employmentmilestonessuchaspromotionandretention,thatemployersaresatisfiedwiththe completerspreparationfortheirassignedresponsibilitiesinworkingwithP12students. SatisfactionofCompleters 4.4 Theproviderdemonstrates,usingmeasuresthatresultinvalidandreliabledata,thatprogram completersperceivetheirpreparationasrelevanttotheresponsibilitiestheyconfrontonthejob, andthatthepreparationwaseffective. Rationale Standards1through3addressthepreparationexperiencesofcandidates,theirdevelopingknowledge andskills,andtheirabilitiesatthepointofprogramcompletion.Candidateprogressandprovider conclusionsaboutthereadinessofcompletersatexitaredirectoutcomesoftheprovidersefforts.By contrast,Standard4addressestheresultsofpreparationatthepointwheretheymostmatterin classroomsandschools.Educatorpreparationprovidersmustattendtocandidatemasteryofthe knowledgeandskillsnecessaryforeffectiveteaching,butthatjudgmentisfinallydependentonthe impactthecompletershaveonthejobwithP12studentlearninganddevelopment. TheparamountgoalofprovidersistopreparecandidateswhowillhaveapositiveimpactonP12 students.Impactcanbemeasuredinmanyways.Component4.1enumeratessomeofthese approaches.TheCommissionunderscoresherewhatalsoissaidintheRecommendationsonEvidence section,below,thatmultiplemeasuresareneededfortheseandotheraccreditationevidence.One approachbeingadoptedbyseveralstatesanddistrictsisknownasvalueaddedmodeling(VAM).A largeresearcheffortsupportedbytheBill&MelindaGatesFoundation,theMeasuresofEffective Teaching(MET)project,providesusefulguidanceaboutthecircumstancesunderwhichthismodelcan mostvalidlybeused.ThesefindingsareconsistentwiththosenotedinPreparingTeachers:Building CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|21

EvidenceforSoundPolicy(NRC,2010):Valueaddedmodelsmayprovidevaluableinformationabout effectiveteacherpreparation,butnotdefinitiveconclusionsandarebestconsideredtogetherwith otherevidencefromavarietyofperspectives.63 TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPencourageresearchonthevalidityandreliabilityofVAMfor programevaluationpurposes.64Becausemembersexpectthatmethodologiesformeasuringteacher impactonP12studentlearninganddevelopmentwillcontinuetoevolveandhopefullyimprove,the CommissionrecommendsthatCAEPalsomakecertainthatitsstandardsandprocessesreflectthe professionsbestcurrentthinkingonappropriateuseofevidenceforprogramimprovementand accreditationdecisions.Inthisregard,providersshouldrefertotheDataTaskForce,theAmerican PsychologicalAssociationguidanceonpreparationmeasures,andtheUniversityofWisconsinMadison ValueAddedResearchCenterreportsregardinguseofmultiplesourcesofdata,includingvalueadded data,forprogramevaluation.65 Multipletypesofsurveyscanserveasindicatorsofteachingeffectiveness(Component4.2),satisfaction ofemployers(Component4.3),andsatisfactionofcompleters(Component4.4).ResearchbyFerguson, forexample,showsthatK12studentsurveysareavalidmeansforunderstandingaspectsofteaching effectiveness.66TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPconsiderthedevelopmentofcommonsurvey itemsandinstrumentsforemployersandcompleters.CAEPalsoshouldparticipateinthevalidationof studentsurveyinstrumentsforuseinteacherpreserviceprograms. Standard5: PROVIDERQUALITYASSURANCEANDCONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT Theprovidermaintainsaqualityassurancesystemcomprisedofvaliddatafrommultiplemeasures, includingevidenceofcandidatesandcompleterspositiveimpactonP12studentlearningand development.Theprovidersupportscontinuousimprovementthatissustainedandevidencebased, andthatevaluatestheeffectivenessofitscompleters.Theproviderusestheresultsofinquiryand datacollectiontoestablishpriorities,enhanceprogramelementsandcapacity,andtestinnovationsto improvecompletersimpactonP12studentlearninganddevelopment. QualityandStrategicEvaluation 5.1 Theprovidersqualityassurancesystemiscomprisedofmultiplemeasuresthatcanmonitor candidateprogress,completerachievements,andprovideroperationaleffectiveness.Evidence demonstratesthattheprovidersatisfiesallCAEPstandards. 5.2 Theprovidersqualityassurancesystemreliesonrelevant,verifiable,representative,cumulative andactionablemeasures,andproducesempiricalevidencethatinterpretationsofdataarevalid andconsistent. ContinuousImprovement 5.3. Theproviderregularlyandsystematicallyassessesperformanceagainstitsgoalsandrelevant standards,tracksresultsovertime,testsinnovationsandtheeffectsofselectioncriteriaon subsequentprogressandcompletion,andusesresultstoimproveprogramelementsand processes.

22|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 5.4. Measuresofcompleterimpact,includingavailableoutcomedataonP12studentgrowth,are summarized,externallybenchmarked,analyzed,sharedwidely,andacteduponindecisionmaking relatedtoprograms,resourceallocation,andfuturedirection. 5.5. Theproviderassuresthatappropriatestakeholders,includingalumni,employers,practitioners, schoolandcommunitypartners,andothersdefinedbytheprovider,areinvolvedinprogram evaluation,improvement,andidentificationofmodelsofexcellence. Glossary Continuousimprovement:Anorganizationalprocessthroughwhichdataarecollectedonallaspectsof aprovidersactivities;analyzedtodeterminepatterns,trends,andprogress;andusedtodefinechanges forthepurposeofimprovingthequalityofprograms,faculty,candidates,policies,procedures,and practicesofeducatorpreparation.

Rationale Effectiveorganizationsuseevidencebasedqualityassurancesystemsanddatainaprocessof continuousimprovement.Thesesystemsanddatabasedcontinuousimprovementareessential foundationalrequirementsforeffectiveimplementationofanyofthethreeCAEPaccreditation pathwaysaneducatorpreparationprovider(EPP)chooseswhetheritistheInquiryBrief,Continuous Improvement,orTransformationalInitiativepathway. Arobustqualityassurancesystemensurescontinuousimprovementbyrelyingonavarietyofmeasures, establishingperformancebenchmarksforthosemeasures(withreferencetoexternalstandardswhere possible),seekingtheviewsofallrelevantstakeholders,sharingevidencewidelywithbothinternaland externalaudiences,andusingresultstoimprovepoliciesandpracticesinconsultationwithpartnersand stakeholders.67 ThequalityofanEPPismeasuredbytheabilitiesofitscompleterstohaveapositiveimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopment.68Programqualityandimprovementaredetermined,inpart,by characteristicsofcandidatesthattheproviderrecruitstothefield;theknowledge,skills,and professionaldispositionsthatcandidatesbringtoandacquireduringtheprogram;therelationships betweentheproviderandtheP12schoolsinwhichcandidatesreceiveclinicaltraining;andsubsequent evidenceofcompletersimpactonP12studentlearninganddevelopmentinschoolswherethey ultimatelyteach.69Tobeaccredited,apreparationprogrammustmeetstandardsoneachofthese dimensionsanddemonstratesuccessinitsowncontinuousimprovementefforts. Effectivequalityassurancesystemsfunctionthroughaclearlyarticulatedandeffectiveprocessfor definingandassuringqualityoutcomes.Reasonsfortheselectionofeachmeasureandthe establishmentofperformancebenchmarksforindividualandprogramperformance,includingexternal pointsofcomparison,aremadeclear.Providersshowevidenceofthecredibilityanddependabilityof thedatathatinformtheirqualityassurancesystems,aswellasevidenceofongoinginvestigationinto thequalityofevidenceandthevalidityoftheirinterpretationsofthatevidence.Providersmustpresent empiricalevidenceofeachmeasurespsychometricandstatisticalsoundness(reliability,validity,and fairness).70 Continuousimprovementsystemsenableprogramsquicklytodevelopandtestprospective improvements,deploywhatislearnedthroughouttheorganization,andaddtotheprofessions knowledgebaseandrepertoireofpractice.71CAEPshouldencourageproviderstodevelopnewmodels CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|23

forevaluatingandscalingupeffectivesolutions.Researchanddevelopmentintheaccreditation frameworkcandeepentheknowledgeofexistingbestpracticesandprovidemodelsofemerging innovationstotransformeducatorpreparation.72

AdditionalRecommendationsoftheCAEPCommission
TheCAEPCommissionalsowaschargedwithdetermininginformationreportedtothepublic,howoften programsarereviewedandmonitored,andthelevelsofaccreditationdecisions. Commissionmemberswereguidedintheirworkbyanalysesofrecenttrendsandpromisingpracticesin accreditation.73Inparticular,Commissionersputthemostweightonstudentlearninganddevelopment outcomes,referringtobothcandidateoutcomesandP12studentoutcomes.Additionally, Commissionersincludedconsiderationofprogramcharacteristicsthatwouldbeexpectedtoensureand enhancequalityandsupportfairtreatmentofcandidates. CAEPCommissionRecommendationson ANNUALREPORTINGANDCAEPMONITORING TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPgatherthefollowingdataandmonitorthemannuallyfrom allproviders: MeasuresofProgramImpact: ImpactonP12learninganddevelopment(dataprovidedforcomponent4.1) Indicatorsofteachingeffectiveness(dataprovidedforcomponent4.3) Resultsofemployersurveys,includingretentionandemploymentmilestones(dataprovided forcomponent4.2) Resultsofcompletersurveys(dataprovidedforcomponent4.4) MeasuresofProgramOutcomeandConsumerInformation: Graduationrates Abilityofcompleterstomeetlicensing(certification)andanyadditionalstaterequirements (e.g.,throughacceptablescoresandpassratesonstatelicensureexams) Abilityofcompleterstobehiredineducationpositionsforwhichtheywereprepared Studentloandefaultratesandotherconsumerinformation TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPidentifylevelsandsignificantamountsofchangeinanyof theseindicatorsthatwouldpromptfurtherexaminationbytheCAEPAccreditationCouncilsAnnual MonitoringCommittee.Outcomescouldinclude:(1)requirementforfollowupinfutureyears,(2) adverseactionthatcouldincluderevocationofaccreditationstatusor(3)recognitionofeligibilityfor ahigherlevelofaccreditation. Inaddition,theCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPincludethesedataasarecurringfeatureinthe CAEPannualreport.

24|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Glossary ConsumerInformation:Informationaboutthestatusandtrendsofoutcomesforcompletersthat shouldbeavailableforprospectivecandidates,parentsofapplicants,employersofcompleters,parents ofP12studentsandgenerallyforthepublic. Thefirstfourindicatorsareinservicemeasuresofqualitythatarebroadlyconsistentwith recommendationsfromtheNationalResearchCouncil74regardingtheincorporationofvalueadded modeling,satisfactionandemploymentmilestonemeasuresfromemployers,andpreparation satisfactionfromprogramcompleters.Thesecondsetofindicatorsareintendedtoensurethefair treatmentofcandidatesandcompleterssothatcandidateshavespecificinformationavailabletothem aboutchancesforcompletion,licensure,andfindingajobinthefieldforwhichtheyprepare,and studentloandefaultratesforagiveneducatorpreparationprovider. Studentloandefaultratesaredesignedasconsumerinformationthatallowsprospectivecandidatesto assessthecostandpotentialbenefitrelationshipsofaprovidersprograms.Theserateswouldnotbe consideredforaccreditationdecisions.Instead,theinformationwouldbefurnishedtoprospective applicantsaspartofasuiteofinformation,suchasisrequiredbytheCouncilforHigherEducation Accreditationstandard12B.1onpublicaccountability.TheCommissionsuggeststhatproviderspublish thesedataalongwithotherconsumerinformation.Examplescouldincludethecostofattendance, beginningsalaryofcompleters,orplacementlocationpatternsofcompleters. AsseenbytheCommission,thesedataandtheirannualreviewserveavarietyofpurposes.Theyare incentivesforproviderstoroutinelygather,analyze,andreportcriticaldataabouttheirprogramsasone meansforpublicaccountabilityandtransparency.Suchdataencouragemoreindepthevaluation,self interrogation,andreportingonthefullbreadthofstandardsandcomponents.Employersand prospectiveapplicantsforadmissionneedthiskindofinformationinuserfriendly,transparentforms. ForCAEP,itself,therearemanyuses: Thedatawillbecomethefoundationofanationalinformationbasethatincreasesinvalueover time. ThedatacantriggeranalerttoCAEPthatfurtherexaminationmaybewarranted,asspecified withintherecommendation. ThedatawillbeasourceofinformationforCAEPsannualreport,complementdescriptive measuresforallaccreditedproviders,facilitatemonitoringoftrendsovertime,allowanalysisof preparationpatternsfordifferentsubgroupsofproviders(e.g.,state,regional,urban,rural), andbearesourceforidentifyingbenchmarkperformances. ThedatabasewillenableCAEPtoreportontheprogressofcontinuousimprovementnotjustforan individualproviderbutforeducatorpreparationacrossallaccreditedproviders. Thedetailsofdatacollectingandreportingneedtobedetermined.Suchmattersasthepopulationto becountedorsampled,themeansfordeterminingtheappropriatecalculationofnumeratorsand denominators,theperiodoverwhichdataarecollected,andthetimeofreportingallmustbeworked out.U.S.DepartmentofEducationregulationsforreportingunderTitleII(onteacherpreparationdata) oftheHigherEducationOpportunityActwillhaveaninfluenceontheregularstatisticaldefinitionsand proceduresforsomeofthesemeasures.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|25

CAEPshouldbecommittedtoannualreportingofdataontheaforementionedmeasures,while allowingforadegreeofflexibilitythatrecognizessomestatesandprovidersmayneedtodevelop neededdatagatheringandreportingcapacities.CAEPhasaresponsibilitytoworkwithstatesandthe CouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficerstoassistproviderswiththeseefforts,butprovidersalsohavea responsibilityformaintainingasystemofongoingdatacollectionandreporting.CAEPalsomust developplansthatcomplementandmakeuseofchangesinpreparationdataasaresultoffederal regulations,oncetheyareinplace. CAEPCommissionRecommendationson LEVELSOFACCREDITATIONDECISIONS TheCommissionproposesfourlevelsofaccreditationdecisions: 1. denialofaccreditationforprovidersthatfallbelowCAEPguidelinesintwoormorestandards; 2. probationaryaccreditationawardedtoprovidersthatmeetorsurpassCAEPguidelinesinfour standards,butfallbelowinoneofthestandards; 3. fullaccreditationawardedtoprovidersthatmeetCAEPguidelinesforallfivestandards;and 4. exemplaryorgoldaccreditationawardedtoasmallnumberofprovidersthatmeetCAEP guidelinessetforallfivestandardsandsurpassthoseguidelinesforacombinationofstandards. TheCommissionproposesfourlevelsofaccreditationdecisions.Thefirstthreewouldbedenial, probationary,andfullaccreditation.ThefourthorhighestlevelwouldbetheCommissionsvision foranexemplaryorgoldaccreditation.Afteradesignandpilotingperiod,theimplementationof suchaCAEPdecisionlevelwouldbreakanewpathinaccreditation,givingvisibilitytoattainmentof superiorperformance. ACAEPdecisiontoawardfullaccreditationwouldsignalthattheproviderseffortsandresults substantiallycomplywiththerigorouslevelsrecommendedbytheCommission.Accreditationcouldbe achievediftherearesomeareaswherecomponentevidencefailstoreachdecisionguidelines,withtwo exceptions: 1. theprovidermustmeetCAEPsguidelinesforevidencefortheannualreportmeasures, including: allcomponentsofstandard4onprogramimpact: o ImpactonP12studentlearninganddevelopment, o Indicatorsofteachingeffectiveness, o Resultsofemployersurveysandincludingretentionandemploymentmilestonesand o Resultsofcompletersurveys. thefollowingmeasuresofprogramoutcomeandconsumerinformation: o Completerorgraduationrates, o Abilityofcompleterstomeetlicensing(certification)andanyadditionalstate accreditationrequirementsand o Abilityofcompleterstobehiredineducationpositionsforwhichtheyareprepared. 2. Educatorpreparationproviderperformanceundercomponents5.3and5.4oncontinuous improvementmustmeetCAEPsguidelinesforevidence. AchievinganexemplaryCAEPaccreditationdecisionwouldsignalthattheprovidersevidenceindicates attainmentofevenmorerigorousperformance,asdescribedabove.Itwoulddemonstratethata

26|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 providerhadfulfilledstandardsataveryhighlevelorwithdistinction.Thisdesignationmightindicate thatthequalityofevidenceanditsperformancevaluesarehigher. TheCommissionproposesthatCAEPundertakedecisivestepstodesignandtestthisapproachfor exemplaryaccreditationoveraspecifictimeline.TheCommissionsvisionforexemplaryaccreditation statusmaybeimplementedinavarietyofways,butitmustbemeritedbyperformancebeyondthe rigorousexpectationsforfullaccreditationthattheCommissionisrecommending.Atwolevelreview processinwhichthesecondlevelwouldemployaspecialpanelofpeerstoevaluatethehigher performanceexpectationsmightbeconsideredasameansofawardingexemplarystatus. TheCAEPdesignandtestinitiativeforawardingexemplarystatusshouldengageappropriatetechnical andeducatorpreparationexperts.Itshouldrefineandcalibraterubricstoguidedesignationof exemplaryorgoldlevelaccreditationandconductvalidityandreliabilitystudiesofthejudgments inherentinthosedecisions. Whilethesystemforreachingexemplarylevelaccreditationdecisionsisunderdevelopment,the CommissionrecommendsthattheCAEPAccreditationCouncilconsideraninterimprocessfor recognizingtrulyoutstandingpreparationproviders.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|27

CrosscuttingThemes intheCommissionsRecommendations
Throughoutitsdeliberations,theCommissionfacedthetwinchallengesofdevelopingcohortsofnew educatorswhocanlifttheperformanceofallofourdiverseP12students,whiletakingadvantageofthe digitalagesnewopportunities.ThisisachallengeforP12educators,butitisalsoagreatopportunity tostrengthenournationwithavigorthatwillensurethatourheterogeneoussocietymaintainsits uniqueplaceinthehistoryofcivilizations. Infact,thesetwocrosscuttingthemesconverge.Technologyanddigitallearninginourschoolscan efficientlybringqualityeducationtoallP12students.Itcanaddresstheinequitableaccesstoessential learningtechnologyresourcesinthehomeandthecommunitythathastoofrequentlybeenevidentin schoolsservingdiverseandeconomicallydisadvantagedstudents.Whenthatinequitypersists,thereare profoundimplicationsfortheeducationalandeconomicopportunitiesavailableforouryouth. Candidatesneedtoknowhowtoassessspecifictechnologicalinequitiesexperiencedbytheirstudents andidentifyandundertakestrategiesthatimproveP12studentsaccessto,andskillsin,usingthese resources. Diversityandtechnologyare,thus,twocriticalareasthatwillrequirenewlearningandsubstantial innovationbypreparationproviders;thesignificantdemographicandtechnologicalchangesthatimpact theirprogramsalsoinfluencetheskillstheircompletersmustmastertobeeffective.Becausethesetwo challengesareimbeddedineveryaspectofeducatorpreparation,theCommissionchosetorecognize themthroughouttherecommendedstandardsandalsotoelaborateonthemhere. Diversity Americasclassroomsareincreasinglydiverse.Studentscometoschoolwithdifferingreligiousand culturalbackgrounds.Increasingnumbersofstudentsareclassifiedashavingdisabilities.TheNational CenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)reportsthat48percentofP12publicschoolstudentsare studentsofcolor,75andtheU.S.BureauoftheCensusreportsthat20percentoftheschoolage populationcomesfromhomeswherenativelanguagesotherthanEnglisharespoken.76Givencurrent trendsinimmigrationandbirthrates,thesenumberswillgrow.NCESprojectsthat,by2021,the proportionofstudentsofcolorwillexceed52percentofenrollments.Fromraceandethnicityto poverty,language,disabilities,giftedness,religion,sexualorientation,andgender,Americaisdiversity. Theeducationworkforceisfarlessdiverse,withfewerthan20percentofteachersbeingteachersof color.Candidatesshouldmorecloselymirrorthediversityofthestudentbody.Candidatesmust experienceeducationindiversesituations,encounterP12studentswithdifferingneeds,andengage studentsfamiliestosupportlearning. Evengeographicallyboundprovidersmustmakeuseofthediversityavailableinclinicalexperiencesso thatcandidatesdevelopgeneralizableknowledge,skills,anddispositions.Moreover,nosinglecandidate preparingforaneducationpositioncanreflect,fromhisorherownlocationandpersonalexperience, allfacetsofdiversity.Regardlessoftheirresidence,personalcircumstances,andpreparation experiences,candidatesneedopportunitiestodevelopprofessionalcapabilitiesthatwillenablethemto adjustandadaptinstructioninappropriatewaysforthediversitytheyarelikelytoencounterintheir professionallives.

28|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 ThestandardsrecommendedbytheCommissionhaveembeddedaspectsofdiversitywithinthem, extendingacrosslearningdisabilities,languagelearners,giftedstudentsandstudentsfromdiverse racial,ethnicandculturalbackgrounds.Forexample: Standard1emphasizesthatallstudentsshouldbethefocusofeducatorpreparationandthat completersshoulddemonstrateskillsandcommitmentthatprovideallP12studentsaccessto rigorouscollegeandcareerreadystandards.Standard1endorsestheInterstateTeacherand SupportConsortium(InTASC)teacherstandardsintheirentirety,andtheperformances, knowledgeanddispositionsthatareextensionsofthosestandardscontainliterallyscoresof referencestoculturalcompetence,individualdifferences,creativityandinnovationandworking withfamiliesandcommunities. Standard2onclinicalexperiencesagainiscastintermsofpreparingcandidatestoworkwith allstudentsandcallsfordiversityinclinicalexperiences. Standard3oncandidatequalityinsiststhatprovidersmustundertakepositiveoutreachefforts torecruitamoreableandmorediversecandidatepool. ThepairingofrecruitmentwithraisingcandidatequalitylevelinStandard3isofparticularimportance. ThispointhasbeenpowerfullyunderscoredbytheFebruary2013reportfromtheEquityandExcellence CommissiontotheSecretaryofEducation,inresponsetoaCongressionalmandate:77 Wewonthaveaseriousequitypolicyuntilwesteerourbesttalenttotheclassroomswhereits mostneeded;andwewontraisethebarforallchildrenuntilfarmoreofourenteringteachersinall schoolsarewellpreparedthemselves. Diversitymustbeapervasivecharacteristicofanyqualitypreparationprogram.TheCommission expectsresponsibleproviderstoensurethatcandidatesdevelopproficienciesinspecificaspectsof diversitythatappearintheCommissionsrecommendedstandardsandtoembeddiversityissues throughoutallaspectsofpreparationcoursesandexperiences.Examplesofproficienciesthat candidateswhocompleteaneducatorpreparationprogramshoulddevelopinclude:78 Incorporationofmultipleperspectivestothediscussionofcontent,includingattentionto learnerspersonal,family,andcommunityexperiencesandculturalnorms. Acommitmenttodeepeningawarenessandunderstandingthestrengthsandneedsofdiverse learnerswhenplanningandadjustinginstructionthatincorporatesthehistories,experiences andrepresentationsofstudentsandfamiliesfromdiversepopulations. Verbalandnonverbalcommunicationskillsthatdemonstraterespectforandresponsivenessto theculturalbackgroundsanddifferingperspectiveslearnersandtheirfamiliesbringtothe learningenvironment. Abilitytointerpretandsharestudentassessmentdatawithfamiliestosupportstudentlearning inalllearningenvironments. Anunderstandingoftheirownframesofreference(e.g.,culture,gender,language,abilities, waysofknowing),thepotentialbiasesintheseframes,therelationshipofprivilegeandpower inschools,andtheimpactoftheseframesoneducatorsexpectationsforandrelationshipswith learnersandtheirfamilies. Becausediversityisanoverarchingfeatureofeducatorpreparation,theCommissionrecommendsthat CAEPaskeducatorpreparationproviderstodemonstrateintheirselfstudieshowtheyhaveintegrated diversitythroughouttheirprogram.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|29

TechnologyandDigitalLearning Childrenarriveatschoolwithwidelydifferingdigitalexperiences,justastheyenterformaleducation withdifferingculturalandfamilybackgrounds,differentexposurestolanguageandvocabulary,and differentcommunitycontexts.Digitalageorconnectedlearningintegrateshighlynetworked, technologyenabledlearningenvironmentswithpedagogyandcontentknowledge.Itcreatesnewways toengagestudentsandlearningenvironmentsthatusetoolsofthedigitalagetoconnectcontent knowledgewithstudentsinterestsandconnectstudentswithinspiringexperts,mentorsandpeersto deepenlearning.Theseapproachesblendonlinenetworksandtoolsandinclassroomandoutofschool learning;effectiveoptionstofitinstructionwithdifferingstudentneedsandpowerfulnewformsof assessmentswithsimulations,gaming,computeradaptation,andrapidscoringcapabilities. TheCommissionsstandardsincludeseveralreferencestoapplicationsofnewtechnologiesto educationalsituations: Standard1endorsestheInTASCteacherstandardsintheirentirety,andtheperformances, knowledge,anddispositionsthatareextensionsofthosestandardsincludeascoreofreferences toapplicationsoftechnology.Educatorsmustknowhowtousetechnologiesandhowtoguide learnerstoapplythem.Theymustknowhowtousedigitalandinteractivetechnologiesfor efficientlyandeffectivelyachievingspecificlearninggoals. Standard1alsostatesthatprovidersaretoensurethatcompletersmodelandapply technologystandardsastheydesign,implement,andassesslearningexperiencestoengage studentsandimprovelearningandenrichprofessionalpractice. Standard2onclinicalexperiencesreferstotechnologyenhancedlearningopportunitiesaspart ofclinicalexperiences,aswellasappropriatetechnologybasedapplicationsforselection, development,evaluation,andcontinuousimprovementandretentionofclinicaleducators. Clinicalpartnershipsaretoincludetechnologybasedcollaborations,aswell. Standard3oncandidatequalitystatesthatproviderspresentmultipleformsofevidenceof candidatesdevelopingknowledgeandskillsduringpreparation,includingtheintegrationof technologyinallofthesedomains. Candidatesneedexperiencesduringtheirpreparationtobecomeproficientinapplicationsofdigital mediaandtechnologicalcapabilities.Theyshouldhaveopportunitiestodeveloptheskillsand dispositionsforaccessingonlineresearchdatabases,digitalmedia,andtoolsandtoidentifyresearch basedpracticesthatcanimprovetheirstudentslearning,engagement,andoutcomes.Theyshould knowwhyandhowtohelptheirstudentsaccessandassesscriticallythequalityandrelevanceofdigital academiccontent.Preparationexperiencesshouldallowcandidatestodemonstratetheirabilitiesto designandfacilitatedigital,orconnected,learning,mentoring,andcollaboration.Theyshould encourageuseofsocialnetworksasresourcesforthesepurposesandtohelpidentifydigitalcontent andtechnologytoolsforP12studentslearning.Candidatesshouldhelptheirstudentsgainaccessto whattechnologyhastooffer. Theessenceoftechnologyisrapidchange.MembersoftheCommissionrealizethatforaccreditation standardsthatmaybeinplaceforthebetterpartofadecade,itisnotpossibletoanticipateevery opportunitythroughwhichtechnologymighthavepotentialtoadvanceinstructionaleffectivenessand studentlearninganddevelopment.TheCommissionhasconcludedthatthecurrentpossibilitiesare insufficientlyexploited,andthoseforthefuturearebeyondcurrentforecastingability.Educator preparationprovidersshouldkeepupwithresearch,andthosepreparingeducatorsshouldmodelbest practicesindigitallearningandtechnologyapplicationsthattheEPPexpectscandidatestoacquire. 30|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Recommendationson EvidenceinAccreditation

Introduction TheCommissionschargegaveequalweighttoessentialstandardsandaccompanyingevidence indicatingthatstandardsaremet.TheadditionalrigorthatCAEPhascommitteditselftoapplyisoften foundinthedataandrubricsbywhichevidencearejudgedratherthaninthelanguageofstandards. Commissionersconcurwiththeconsensusthatmeasureswidelyavailableforaccreditationevidenceare toooftenonlyindirectindicatorsorweakproxiesforwhatprovidersandCAEPneedtoknow.The currentgenerationofP12studentscannotwaitforthisproblemtobesolved,sointheneartermCAEP musttakethebestinformationthatcanbemarshaledanduseitaseffectivelyaspossible.However,the CommissioninsiststhatCAEPinitiatesignificantefforts,beginningnow,tochangethissituationwitha cleartimelineandactionsteps.TheCommissionhighlightssixaspectsofevidencethatframe considerationofevidenceinaccreditation: 1. Decisionsareinformedbymultiplemeasures. 2. PreparationisjudgedbytheimpactthatcompletershaveonP12studentlearningand development. 3. Educatorpreparationprovidersareresponsibleforthevalidity,reliabilityandfairnessof evidencetheyoffertodemonstratethatCAEPstandardsaremet. 4. Educatorpreparationprovidersmaintainqualityassurancesystemsthatsupportcontinuous monitoringofawiderangeofconditionsandoutcomesofpreparation,andtheyusedatato reachtowardandsurpasschallenginggoals. 5. CAEPmusttakeresponsibleimplementationstepsthatacknowledgeprovidersbeginin differentplaces.Tobefullyaccredited,however,providersmustbeonacertainpathtoreach CAEPsmorerigorousstandardsandevidenceexpectations. 6. CAEPcan,andmust,playaprominentroletoadvanceevidenceinformedaccreditationasone ofitsprofessionalresponsibilities. WhereWeAreandWhereWeNeedtoGo Inanidealworld,educationaccreditationwoulddrawitsevidentiarydatafromawidearrayofsources thathavedifferentqualitativecharacteristicsfrommanyofthosecurrentlyavailable.Therewouldbe elementsofpreparationthatarequantifiedwithcommondefinitionsorcharacteristics(e.g.,different formsorpatternsofclinicalexperiences)thateveryonewouldunderstandandthatproviderswoulduse intheirowndatasystems.Therewouldbecomparableexperiencesinpreparationthatprovidersaswell asemployers,stateagencies,andpolicymakers,agreeareessential.Therewouldbesimilar requirementsacrossstatesforcourses,experiences,andlicensure.Therewouldbeafewuniversally administeredexaminationsthatserveasstronganchorsforjudgmentsabouteffectivepreparationand thatareacceptedasgatewaystopreparationprograms,employment,orpromotion. Thequalitiesofeducatorpreparationdatafallfarshortofsuchanidealsystem.However,Commission membersareoptimisticthatadvancesinthequalityofevidenceareathand.Frommanyargumentsthat mightbemadeindefenseofthatoptimism,threestandout: 1. Thecurrentpolicyinterestinwellpreparedteachersandleadersisprobablyhigherthanithas everbeen,especiallyinstates.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|31

2. Severalresearchprojectspromisetoincreaseknowledgeaboutcriticalrelationshipsbetween preparationandeffectiveteachingthatcaninformeducationpreparationprovidersandalso nextgenerationaccreditationstandards.Forexample,theU.S.DepartmentofEducations InstituteforEducationSciencesissupportingrandomizedcontrolledtrialstoexamineelements ofpreparation,includingselectionandclinicalexperiences. 3. TheMeasuresofEffectiveTeachingprojectconcludedalargeresearchstudyofinstruments usedtoevaluateteacherperformances,someorallofwhichmightbeadaptedtoserveaspre servicemeasures. CAEPPresidentJamesG.CibulkatookstepstoensureCommissionaccesstoresourcesthatwould increaseitseffectivenessinaddressingtheevidenceaspectsofitscharge.TheseincludedaDataTask Forcewithdiversedataexperts,chairedbyPeterEwellwhosepaperontrendsinaccreditationhad influencedtheCommissionsinitialdiscussions.EwellbroughthisreportfromtheDataTaskForce discussiontotheCommission,alongwithapaperonprinciplesforgoodevidence,apaperonaction research,andatemplatefordisplayingtheevidencesuggestedbytheCommission(seeendnote65, Ewell(2013),andtheAppendixtotheCommissionsreport). Inaddition,CAEPmadeaninvestmentinguidelinesfromtheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation(APA) foruseofstudentgrowth,survey,andobservationinstrumentsineducatorpreparation.Thedraftof thatreportwasavailabletotheCommissionandisbeingpreparedforreleasebytheAPAlaterthisyear (seeendnote65,APA(2013)).And,finally,CAEPcommissionedastudyonstudentgrowthmeasures fromtheUniversityofWisconsinMadisonValueAddedResearchCenter.Thisincludedseveralvalue addedmodels,alongwithguidelinesforuseofthesemeasuresforprogramevaluationpurposes(see endnote65).TheCommissiondrewonallofthesematerialstoshapeitsconclusionsaboutevidencein accreditationthatfollow.Alloftheseresourceswillbecomevaluableguidanceforproviders,and perhapsstatesaswell,asneweffortsareundertakentocreatebetterdataforpreparationand accreditation. JudgePreparationbyImpactonP12StudentLearningandDevelopment Ultimately,thequalityofaneducatorpreparationprovidermustbemeasuredbytheabilitiesofits completerstohaveapositiveimpactonP12studentlearninganddevelopment.79 Standard4addressestheresultsofpreparationprogramsinclassroomsandschools.Providersmust providedatatodemonstratethatprogramcompleterscontributetoanexpectedlevelofstudent learninggrowth.Providersneedthisinformationasanintegralpartoftheirqualityassurancesystem. Theyneedtoknowhoweffectivetheyhavebeenandtoassesswhethertheirpreparationexperiences shouldberevised. TheimpactofpreparationcompletersonP12learninganddevelopmenthaslongbeenagoalin accreditation.Buttheassessmentinstrumentsandmodelingprotocolsthatarebecomingavailable, somealreadyemployedinstatesorwitheducatorpreparationproviders,providepotentialforfarmore effectiveevidenceofthatimpact.Here,aselsewhereinaccreditation,theCommissionappliesthe generalrulefromtheMeasuresofEffectiveTeaching(MET)project:multiplemeasures,multipletimes, overmultipleyears. EwellandtheDataTaskForce80identifiedseveralsourcesofP12studentimpactinformationthat illustratemultiplemeasuresofstudentlearninganddevelopment:

32|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 StateteacherevaluationsCompleterimpactonP12studentlearninganddevelopmentare nowanintegralpartofsomestateteacherevaluationpractices.Forthesubjectsandgrades wherethosedataareavailable,providersshouldmakeuseofthemintheirqualityassurance monitoringandaccreditationreviews.Thesedatafrequentlyintegratestudentlearningand developmentmeasureswithotherindicatorsofcompleterclassroomsuccess,suchas observationswithstructuredprotocolsandtrained,disinterestedreviewersandstudentsurveys ontheclassroomexperience. TeachersofrecordinsomepreparationmodelsManyalternativepreparationprovidershave collaboratedwithdistrictstodesignatecandidatesintheirprogramsasteachersofrecordin thedistrict.Inthosecases,thestatesteacherevaluationsystemcouldbeasourceofP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentimpactinformationpriortocompletion. ProviderstudiesEPPscouldmakeuseofalternativesourcesofcompleterimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentthataredevelopedbyschooldistricts,particularlywhere thesedataarenotavailablefromstates. PreserviceprogressAllprovidersshould,ataminimum,administerassessmentsthatmonitor candidateproficiencies,includingimpactonP12studentlearning,atvariouspointsduringtheir developmentalpreparationexperiences. PreserviceexitAllprovidersshould,ataminimum,administercapstoneassessmentsthat samplemultipleaspectsofteaching.TheseshouldroutinelyincludemeasuresofimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentaswellaslessonplans,teachingartifacts,examplesof studentworkandobservationsorvideosjudgedthroughrubricbasedreviewsbytrained externalreviewers.

MakingaCasethatStandardsareMet EPPshavetheburdentodemonstratethattheymeetCAEPstandards.CAEPshouldexpectprovidersto takeresponsibilityforexaminingthequalityofevidenceonwhichtheyrelyinparttomaketheircase thatstandardsforaccreditationaremetbut,routinely,forcontinuousimprovementoftheirown programs.Providersshoulddemonstratethatthedatausedindecisionmakingarevalid,reliable,and fair(freeofbias).InkeepingwiththeCommissionsperspectivethatresultsmatter,providersshould giveequalweighttothemessagefromthedatatheinterpretationofthevaluesorresults.Through benchmarks,comparisons,andothermeans,theprovidershoulddescribeitsstatusandtrendsin relationtoCAEPstandards. Manymeasuresofbothacademicandnonacademicfactorsassociatedwithhighqualityteachingand learningneedtobestudiedforreliability,validity,andfairness.Ewellsummarizedtenprinciplesfor evidence81thatCAEPshouldmakeavailableforanyoneinvolvedinpreparationoraccreditation. Providersmustpresentempiricalevidenceofeachmeasurespsychometricandstatisticalsoundness (reliabilityandvalidity).82Theyshoulddescribetheirprocessesfortestingthevalidity,reliability,and fairnessofmeasuresandinstrumentsusedtodeterminecandidatesprogressthroughthepreparation program,atcompletionoftheprogram,andduringthefirstyearsofpractice.Theevidenceshouldmeet acceptedresearchstandardsforvalidityandreliabilityofcomparablemeasuresandshould,among otherthings,ruleoutalternativeexplanationsorrivalinterpretationsofreportedresults. Validitycanbesupportedthroughevidenceof o Expertvalidationoftheitemsinanassessmentorratingform(contentvalidation) o Agreementamongfindingsoflogicallyrelatedmeasures(convergentvalidity) o Ameasuresabilitytopredictperformanceonanothermeasure(predictivevalidity) o Expertvalidationofperformanceorofartifacts(expertjudgment)

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|33

o Agreementamongcodersorreviewersofnarrativeevidence. Reliabilityinitsvariousformscanbesupportedthroughevidenceof: o Agreementamongmultipleratersofthesameeventorartifact(orthesamecandidateat differentpointsintime) o Stabilityorconsistencyofratingsovertime o Evidenceofinternalconsistencyofmeasures

TheCommissionsrecommendations,collectively,placeastrongemphasisonperformancemeasuresas evidence.Butsometimesinputandprocessmeasuresareimportant.OneinstanceiswhenCAEPneeds assurancethatanEPPslevelofperformancecanbesustainedovertime.Anotherinstanceiswhen therearenoextantperformancemeasures.Anexampleofthelatterisassessment. TheNationalResearchCouncilandotherconcurringsourceshaveunderscoredthecriticalrolethat assessmentplaysnotjustforaccountabilitypurposesbutasatooltoenhancelearning.Itsharpens teachersspecificityoflearninggoals,providesdescriptivefeedbacktoP12studentsabouttheir achievements,yieldsdiagnosticinformationforteachersabouttheirownperformance,andcan motivatestudents.Standard1callsoncandidatestounderstandappropriateusesofavarietyof assessmentsandtobeabletoconstructandemployformativeandsummativeassessmentsthat evaluateP12studentlearningofexplicitinstructionalgoals.Completersalsoshouldbeableto constructanduseassessmentsspecificallydesignedtodiagnoselearnerprogressanddetermine,as appropriate,interventionneeds.Completersneedtoknowhowtoanalyzeandmakeuseofresultsfrom summativemeasuressuchasstandardizedstateordistrictteststhatareadministeredtotheirstudents. Evaluatingcandidatesperformanceagainsttheseexpectationsinstandardsischallenging,inlargepart becausetherearenotextantassessmentsthataredesignedtomeasurethosecapabilities.The Commissionreceivedadvicethatthisisanareainwhichprograminputsarenecessarymeasuresuntil thestateoftheartinassessmentscatchesup.CAEPshouldinsistthatprovidersgatherandreport evidenceoftheirstewardshipinpromotingcandidatesassessmentproficiencies(1)incoursework focusedonassessment,(2)byembeddingassessmenttopics,includingdiagnosticandintervention techniques,incontentandmethodscourses,and(3)bycreatingpreparationexperiencesthatoffer candidatesrealworldopportunitiestoapplywhattheyhavelearned.83 ContinuousImprovement Requiringcontinuousimprovementbyallpreparationprovidersisperhapsthemostimportantpurpose ofStandard5.Eventhebestprogramscanimprovefurther.Continuousimprovementbyallaccredited programsisessentialtoachievethelevelofeducatorpreparationthatwillhelpensure21stcenturyskills forallstudents.TheCommissionsrecommendationsinStandard5outlinetheresponsibilitiesof providerstomaintainevidencebasedqualityassurancesystemsthatsupportorganizational effectiveness.Thesesystemsarecharacterizedbyclearlyarticulatedandeffectiveprocessesfordefining andassuringqualityoutcomesandforusingdatainaprocessofcontinuousimprovement. Arobustqualityassurancesystemenablescontinuousimprovementinthefollowingways: ItreliesonavarietyofmeasuresthatarerelevanttotheEPPmission. Itdefinesperformancebenchmarksforitsmeasures(comparedwithexternalreferences,where possible). Itmaintainsthecredibilityanddependabilityofdata,(thatis,dataarerelevant,verifiable, representative,cumulative,andactionablemeasures,andthequalityassurancesystem producesempiricalevidencethatinterpretationsofdataarevalidandconsistent). 34|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 ItinvestigatesthequalityofevidenceandthevalidityofEPPinterpretationsofthatevidence. Itseekstheviewsofallrelevantstakeholders. Itsharesevidencewidelywithbothinternalandexternalaudiences.

Thepurposeofsucharobustqualityassurancesystemistoinformpoliciesandpracticesinconsultation withpartnersandstakeholders.84Dataaretobeused.CAEPshouldencourageproviderstodevelopnew modelsandtoevaluateandscaleupeffectivesolutions.Researchanddevelopmentintheaccreditation frameworkcandeepentheknowledgeofexistingbestpracticesandprovidemodelsofemerging innovationstotransformeducatorpreparation.85 ImplementationofNewStandardsandNewExpectationsforEvidence TheCommissionsstandardsandexpectationsforevidencearechallenging.Commissionersareaware thatprogramimpactdataarenotuniversallyavailableandthataskingproviderstodevelopdata collectionsystemsindividuallyraisesissuesofcosts,efficiency,anddatacomparability. ThemanytypicalandsuggestedevidenceexamplesintheappendixtotheCommissions recommendationsillustratevaryingexpectations: somedescribeahigherlevelofrigorthanhasbeenthepastaccreditationexperience; somearenewtoaccreditation; someanticipateemergingassessmentsfromonesnowindevelopmentalstages;and somewillevolvethroughCAEPeffortstomakedatamorecomparableandusefulthantheyare currently. TheCommissionsnewevidenceinformedaccreditationrecommendationscombinetheraisingof performancetomeetstandardswiththegatheringanduseofevidencedemonstratingthat achievement.Educatorpreparationproviderscannotallreachthenewstandardsandevidence performancelevelsatonce.Providersbeginindifferentplaces.Theyhavedifferentmissionsand establishedlongtermpractices.Theyarelocatedindifferentgeographicareasandexperiencedifferent contexts.Theyarelocatedinstateswithdifferentcapacitiestogenerateandsharedatarelevantto providerperformance.Theymaydecidethatsignificantchangesmustbeundertakentoreachthe preparationperformancelevelsdescribedbytheCommission.Theymayevenchoosetodevelopnew typesofarrangementsforclinicalexperiences,ortocombinetheirstrengthswithotherprovidersto accomplishsomethingtogetherthattheycouldnotachievealone.NewarrangementsacrossEPPswith differentsponsorsinstitutionsofhighereducationandalternativeproviders,forexamplemayneed tobecreatedinresponsetothesechallenges.TheCommissionrecommendsthatCAEPtakestepsto encouragepracticaladaptationstocurrentpracticeofthesekinds. Statesandphilanthropicfoundationsalsomustshouldertheirresponsibilitiesforpreparation.In2012, theCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficerspublishedareportoneducatorpreparationandentryintothe profession.Oneofitsrecommendationsisthatstatessupportprogramimprovement: Statesshouldhaveaplanforsupportingprogramsthathaveidentifiedweaknessesandareasfor improvement,especiallyincaseswhereapreparationprogramhasbeenidentifiedasatriskorlow performing.86 TheCommissionconcurs.Someproviderssimplylackappropriatepersonnel,sufficientresources,or capacitytomonitortheirownprogressforcontinuousimprovement.Effectivepreparationrequires bothsufficient,andeffectivelyused,funds.Thesefactscannotbeignored.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|35

 CAEPwillneedtocraftpracticalimplementationguidelines.Realistically,theCommissionsvisionfor higherqualityandmoreconsistentandrigorousevidencemustbephasedinoverabriefperiodofyears incollaborationwithstates.CAEPsimplementationguidelinesshouldbeparsimoniousintheir expectationsforevidence,placinggreateremphasisonthemostcriticaldatathanonthevolumeof data.CAEPshouldgiveprioritytomeasuresofimpactonstudentlearninganddevelopmentandto measuresofreadinesstoteacheffectivelyatthecompletionofpreparation,alongwiththeannual programoutcomeandprogramimpactmeasures. BetterData,BetterUsed CAEPmustundertakesubstantialcontinuingresponsibilitiestoupgradethecurrentlyavailabledataon whicheducatorpreparationprovidersandaccreditationrely.Theseinvolveseveralrelatedactivitiesto developbetterdataandtousedatabetter. CAEPActionstoDevelopBetterData Providers,thepublic,andpolicymakersallneedtoperceiveCAEPdecisionsascredible.Theevidentiary baseavailabletoCAEPmustimprove,anditwill.Strongerevidence,whichCAEPhasaprofessional responsibilitytohelpgenerate,willprovideamoresolidfoundationfortheprofessionaljudgments reachedinCAEPsaccreditationdecisions.Overtime,thatmoresolidfoundationwillpermitagradual shiftinCAEPsevidentiaryexpectations. Betterknowledgeisneededonwhichinput(e.g.,candidateandprogramcharacteristics)andoutcome measurespredicthighperformanceonthejob.Thiscannotbeaccomplisheduntilrelatively standardizeddescriptionsofprogramcharacteristicsanddataonprogramperformancecanbe combinedandcorrelated.Asnewassessmentsbecomeavailable,measuresofteacherimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentcanberefinedandobservationprotocolswillbeappliedatthepre servicelevel. CAEPmustinitiatesomedataimprovementsteps,butitalsoneedsstrongcollaborators,especially amongthestates.TheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficersreportoneducatorpreparationmakesa recommendationthatstatesprovide...feedback,data,supports,andresourcestopreparation programstoassistthemwithcontinuousimprovementandtoactonanyprogramapprovalornational accreditationrecommendations.87 Asstatesextendthesedatacapabilitiesandsharetheresultswithpreparationproviders,therewillbe strongbenefitsallaroundforproviderstoaccessimportantinformationabouttheprogressoftheir completers,forstatestobemoreassuredthattheirconcernsforabetterpreparedteacherworkforce areaddressed,andforCAEPaccreditationactionstobeinfluencedbymoreconsistentevidencethat standardsaremet. SomedirectionsthatCAEPshouldpursueinitseffortstoimprovepreparationandaccreditationdata wereoutlinedfortheCommissionbyEwellonbehalfoftheDataTaskForce:88 Preparationandaccreditationdatashouldmovetowardcomparativeorstandardmeasures whereverpossible.CAEPshouldtakestepstoinstantiatesuchaspirationalevidenceasan80 percentpassrateonacommonstatelicensuretestwithacommonpassingscore,anevidence exampleincludedbytheCommissionintheAppendix. Allmeasuresneedtriangulationbytheuseofmultiplesourcesandmethods.

36|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 TheannualreportingmeasuresshouldbeprominentlydisplayedonEPPwebsitesandalso reportedbyCAEP. MuchefficiencymightbegainedthroughCAEPcollaborationwithstatesonpreparation measuresofcommoninterest,suchasemploymentandretentionrates,andperhapscompleter andemployersurveys. CAEPshouldconsiderpublishinginformationonthecapacityandinfrastructureofstatedata systemstoprovidenecessaryinformationforaccreditation.Itcouldevensuggestitsown accreditationperspectiveonanidealstatedatasystemandmakeitpossibleforinformation onactualstatecapacityandinfrastructuretobecomparedagainstthatideal.

Finally,asCAEPdevelopsplansthatcarryoutCommissionrecommendationsonexemplarylevel accreditation,thesedatawillofferarichresourcefromwhichEPPsthatexhibitexemplarypracticescan beidentified. CAEPActionstoUseDataBetter Asnewandbetterevidencebecomeavailable,CAEPmustbecommittedtousethatevidence appropriatelyinmakingaccreditationdecisions.TheCommissionhighlightsthreeareas,especially: 1. Annualreportdatashouldbeusedtoidentifytriggerpointsthatwouldshapeaccreditation questionsandsitevisits(seesectionBrecommendationonannualreporting). 2. CAEPshouldbetransparentinitspublicaccountabilityreportingwithmultiplemeasures, includingonesdirectlylinkedtostudentachievement.Theannualreportdataandthenational databaseonpreparationthataccumulatesovertimefromaccreditationfunctions,havemany uses,asdetailedintherecommendationsinsectionBonannualreporting.Thedatabasewill enableCAEPtoreportontheprogressofcontinuousimprovementnotjustforanindividual providerbutforeducatorpreparationacrossallaccreditedproviders. 3. CAEPshouldholditselftothesamestandardofevidencebasedpracticethatitcallson providerstomeet.Itshoulddevelopitsresourcestoconductevidencebasedaccreditation processes.Itshouldmonitornewevidenceofimplementationofexistingassessments,the developmentofnewassessmentsandimproperusesofassessmenttools.Itshouldprovide reportsondevelopmentsinthefieldtoeducatorpreparationproviders.Anditshouldmonitor unintendedconsequencesofimplementationofthestandardsincludingthedataburdenand humanresourcechallengesthatimplementationimposes. TheseanticipateddatacapabilitiesovertimewillenableCAEPtorelymoreonprogramoutcomesand performanceresultsandlessoninputsandprocessestomakeitsjudgments.Asnewassessmentsand morecommonmeasuresbecomeavailable,theevidenceexpectationscanberaised,withastronger footingforthenextgenerationofCAEPstandards.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|37

Scopeofthe CommissionsRecommendations
TheCommissionhasmadechoicesintwoareasthathaveaneffectonthescopeofitsrecommendations. Thefirstoftheserelatestotheframingofitsstandards,reportingandaccreditationrecommendations, andevidenceexpectationsintermsofteachersandnotincludingexplicitreferencestoeducationleaders orotherschoolpersonnel.ThesecondisaquestionoftherelationshipoftheCommissionsfocuson performanceandoutcomesratherthanintermsofresourcesorcapacityfactorsforaccreditationthat aredescribedinU.S.DepartmentofEducationregulationsforaccreditationorganizations.Thesetwo topicsareaddressedinthesectionsbelow. Teachers,OtherSchoolPersonnel,andLeaders TheCommissionsrecommendationsapplyexplicitlytoteachers.Amongthepubliccommentswere manythatquestionedthatlimitation,notingthatthescopeshouldbemoreinclusiveofeducator preparationprogramsastheyexist. TherearecogentreasonsthatCAEPsstandardsshouldextendtootherschoolprofessionalsand advancedcertificatepreparation,aswellastoschoolleadership.CAEPspredecessororganizationsboth includedtheseotherspecializationsintheirreviewsandaccreditationdecisions.WhileCommissioners examinedmanyresearchreportsrelevanttoteaching,aconsiderableportionofthosereportsreach conclusionsthatcouldapplyequallywelltootherschoolpersonnel.Manyoftheextantreportsfrom associationsandeducationreformgroupsaddressthefunctioningofschoolsasorganizationsandgive particularprominencetoleadership,collaboration,andsharingofinformationthatisthebasisfor continuingimprovement. TheCommissionrecommendedstandardsandtheircomponentscouldbeadaptedforotherschool professionalsandadvancedcertificatepreparation(e.g.,somestatesnowoffercertificatesforteacher leaders).Whilesomeoftheseeducationspecializationsincludeinstructionalroles(e.g.,reading specialists,schoollibrarymediaspecialistsortechnologycoaches,teachersforstudentswithdisabilities, orteachersforgiftedstudents),forothersthatlinkseemslessdirect(e.g.,schoolpsychologists,school counselors,technologydirectors,oreducationleaders). WhiletheCommissiondidnotaddressleadershipstandardsexplicitly,paralleleffortsareunderwayin thatspecialtyfield.AttheinceptionoftheCommissionswork,considerationwasgiventodevelopment ofleadershipstandardsthatmightcomplementtheproposedteacherpreparationprogramstandards recommendedbytheCommission.Ofcourse,thereiscompellinglogictoseekaclosealignment betweenstandardsforpreparationprogramsthataddressbothteachingandleadership.Indeed,the CouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficers(CCSSO)tookthisapproachintheir2012reportOurResponsibility, OurPromise:TransformingEducatorPreparationandEntryintotheProfession.AsaresultofCCSSOs initiative,thecurrentInterstateSchoolLeadersLicensureConsortium(ISLLC)licensurestandardsfor leadershipareunderrevision.ThisworkisbeingcoordinatedwiththeNationalPolicyBoardon EducationalAdministration(NPBEA).Theintentistomakeparallelrevisionstothestandardsfor leadershippreparationprogramsundertheauspicesoftheEducationLeadershipConstituentCouncil (ELCC),whichcurrentlyprovidesnationalprogramrecognitionforleadershippreparationprogramson behalfoftheelevenmemberNPBEA.TheseinitiativesaredirectlylinkedwithCAEP:someofthe

38|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 membersofNPBEAandELLCaremembersoftheCommission,andCAEPPresidentJamesG.Cibulka chairstheNPBEA. CommissionersconcurredwiththesuggestedenlargementinscopeofCAEPsstandards,believingthat theirrecommendationsprovideasoundframeworkthatcanaccommodateteachers,advanced certificatepreparation,otherschoolprofessionals,andeducationleaders.Thechangesneedtobe thoughtfullydevelopedandsensitivetoboththoseaspectsofeducatorpreparationstandardsthatare similarandthosethatareuniqueforthesedifferingareasofspecialization.TheCommission recommendsthatCAEPaddressthisenlargedscopeforaccreditationstandardsinanappropriate manneroverthecomingmonthsasguidelinesareconstructedandstandardsarereadiedfor implementation. CapacityStandards Astheydevelopedconceptsforperformancebasedandevidenceinformedaccreditationforeducator preparation,CommissionershadopportunitiestolearnaboutregulatoryrequirementsoftheU.S. DepartmentofEducationforrecognitionofaccreditationagencies,includingCAEP.Theregulations makeclearthatanaccreditorseekingrecognitionofitsprocessesbytheDepartmentmusthave standards...thataresufficientlyrigoroustoensurethattheagencyisareliableauthorityregardingthe qualityoftheeducationortrainingprogramsitaccredits.89 Theregulationsstatethattheaccreditormeetsthisrequirementifitsstandardseffectivelyaddressthe qualityoftheinstitutionorprogramintenspecificlistedareas. Severaloftheseareas,whichmightbelabeledcapacitystandards,encompassaspectsofthe Commissionsrecommendations.Theyinclude: 1. Afocusonsuccesswithrespecttostudentachievement,whichtheCommissionaddressesfar morebroadlyasbothcandidatelearningandtheimpactonlearninganddevelopmentoftheP 12studentsofcompleters. 2. Thecurriculum,whichthestandardsaddressespeciallyinStandards1(Contentand PedagogicalKnowledge)and2(ClinicalPracticeandPartnerships). 3. FacultyareaddressedasapartofclinicaleducatorsinStandard2onclinicalexperiences, althoughthatisonlyaportionofallpreparationfaculty. 4. RecruitingandadmissionpracticesarealargefactorinStandard3,althoughtheDepartments additionalspecificationofacademiccalendars,catalogs,publications...andadvertisingare not. 5. Reviewofstudentloandefaultdataisincludedintheregulationsforaccreditorsthatprovide eligibilityforfederalstudentfinancialaidunderTitleIVoftheHigherEducationOpportunity Act.CAEPisnotinvolvedinanyTitleIVeligibilityresponsibilities,however,theCommission adaptedtheideaofaccreditorreviewoftheeducatorpreparationproviderinits recommendationsaroundconsumerprotectioninformation. ThereareseveralothercapacitystandardstopicslistedbytheDepartmentthatfalloutsideofthe Commissionsfocus.Theseaddressthefollowingproviderresponsibilities: 6. Facilities,equipment,andsupplies; 7. Fiscalandadministrativecapacity; 8. Studentsupportservices;

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|39

9. Measuresofprogramlengthandtheobjectivesofthedegreesorcredentialsoffered(whichthe regulationsapplyonlytoaccreditorswithTitleIVeligibilityresponsibilities);and 10. Therecordofstudentcomplaintsreceivedby,oravailableto,theaccreditor. SomeoftheselatterareasdobearonprovidersabilitiestoprepareP12educatorstomeetpublic expectations.However,theperspectiveoftheCommissionisthattheywouldnotcontributetothe motivesthathaveguidedtheCommissionthatis,tofosterinnovationandrigor,todrawfrom research,andtocreateaperformancebased,evidenceinformedaccreditationsystem.Onbalance,the Commissionersdeterminedthatomittingstandardsintheseareaswillservetomakethedirectionof theCommissionsrecommendationsmostclear:theCommissionsprimaryfocusisonoutcomesand performance. WorkingwithintheexistingregulatoryframeworkremainstheresponsibilityofCAEP.TheCommission leavestoitthemakingofadjustmentsandadditionsthatwillbeneededinitsfinalstandardssubmission totheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.CommissionersurgetheDepartmenttobeflexibleinreviewing thatsubmissionand,intheappropriatevenue,toreexaminewhetherthecurrentregulationsstillmeet todaysneedsforP12education.

40|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Appendix
TypicalandSuggestedMeasuresforAccreditationEvidence
PresidentCibulkaaskedtheCommissiontointegrateitsdeliberationon standardswithdeliberationsonevidence.Commissionersweretoconsider thequestion,HowwouldCAEPknowthatastandardwasmetbyanEPP? Thiswasnotintendedasarequestforhighlytechnicaljudgmentsorto definestatisticalterms.Instead,itwastodrawonthebreadthof Commissionersexpertisetoformulateexamplesofevidencethatwouldbe crediblecredibletoproviders,tostateofficials,tothoseinhigher education,topolicymakers,tolocaldistrictleaders,toalternativeproviders, andtoeducationentrepreneurs. IncorporatingatemplatepreparedfortheDataTaskForceandadvicefrom PeterEwell,thechartbelowcontainstheCommissionssuggestionsfor measuresfromwhichprovidersmightchoose,alongwithothersthey identify,tomaketheircasethatCAEPstandardsaremet.Inthetable: Column(1),ReferencetoCommissionStandard,providesalinkto therecommendedstandardsandtheheadingtitlesforgroupingsof components.Forexample,Standard1:ProviderResponsibilities andStandard3:SelectivityDuringPreparation. Column(2)describesEvidenceMeasuresandconcludeswith suggestedcomparisonpointsorbenchmarksforeachmeasure. Manyofthesespecifypeerjudgment,whichsignalsthatevidence needsreviewbytrainedevaluatorsandthatCAEPwouldconstruct clearrubricstoguideaconsistentinterpretation. Columns(3)through(7)bearthelabelsofCommissionstandards. Theentryineachcellisabriefdescriptoroftheaspectofastandard thatisinformedbyeachmeasure(e.g.admissionindicator).Each concludeswithanumericalreferencetothestandardand componentwithwhichthemeasureismostcloselyassociated(e.g., 5.3or3.6). NotethatseveralmeasurescanbeappliedtoCommission recommendationsformorethanonestandard.Examplesare preserviceP12studentsurveys,casestudyoftheeffectiveness ofdiversefieldexperiencesoncandidatespractices,and standardizedcapstoneassessments. Thetypicalandsuggestedmeasuresaregroupedundersixheadings thatbeginwiththeproviders(1)qualityassurancesystemandits useforcontinuousimprovementandthenfollowcandidatespath from(2)recruitmentandadmissions(3)throughpreparation experience,,(4)clinicalcapstoneassessments,(5)licensureand exitassessmentsand,finally,to(6)inservicemeasures.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|41

EvidenceMeasures Refer enceto Comm. Standard (2) (1) 1. QUALITYASSURANCESYSTEMAND ITSUSEFORCONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Qualityassurancesystemdatacapabilitiesto compile,store,access,manage,andanalyze datafromdiversesources:multipleindicators fromstandards1,2,and3;feedbackfrom standard4;anddocumentationofprogram outcomesfromannualreporting.Peer judgment. IllustrationsofEPPeffortstoinvestigatethe qualityofdatasourcesandtostrengthenthe overallqualityassurancesystem.Peer judgment.
Std5:Qualityand strategicevaluation

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Sourceofdata andanalytic capacityfor candidate contentand pedagogical knowledge

Source ofdata andanalytic capacityfor clinical experiences

Sourceofdata andanalytic capacityfor candidate qualityindicators

Sourceofdata andanalytic capacityfor programimpact measures

Indicatorsofthe depthand breadthofEPP quality assurance capability,5.1

Sourceof dataand analytic capacityfor annual reporting measures

Processesfortestingthereliabilityandvalidity ofmeasuresandinstruments.Peerjudgment againstDataTaskForceprinciples. Documentationthatdataaresharedwithboth internalandexternalaudiencesandusedfor programimprovement.Peerjudgment.

42|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Std.5:Continuous improvementprocess

Descriptionsoftestedinnovationsand improvementsthathavebeenmade.Peer judgment

Indicatorofthe qualityofdatain thequality assurance(QA) system,5.2 Indicatorofthe qualityofdatain theQAsystem, 5.2 Indicatorofthe functioningof theQAsystem, 5.5 Indicatorofthe useoftheQA systemtomake continuous improvement analysesand decisions5.3

Std.5:useofStd.5:useofQA QAand anddescriptive descriptive measures measures

Std.5:Useof QAand descriptive measures

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.5:Continuous improvement process

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Indicatorsof capacityand commitmentto sustain continuous improvement5.3 Indicatorofuse ofquality assurancesystem forimprovement 5.5 Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3 Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3 Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3 Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3 Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3

Recommen dations (8)

Documentationofleadershipcommitmentto continuousimprovementandofstakeholder involvementintheEPPsassessmentofthe effectivenessofprogramsandcompleters,for peerreviewevaluation.Peerjudgment. Documentationofstakeholderinvolvement. Peerjudgment.

Std.5:QA Std.5:QA Std.5:QA 5Std.5: system;also system;also system;also Continuous annualrpt. annualrpt. annualrpt. improvement process

Graduationrates.Comparisonsovertimeand withEPPselfselectedpeers

Annualreport measure

Licensing(certification)andotherstate accreditationrequirements.Comparisonsover timeandwithEPPselfselectedpeers. Hiringofcompletersinfieldsforwhich prepared.Comparisonsovertimeandwith EPPselectedpeers. Studentloandefaultrates.3yearfloating average.Reportedforconsumerinformation, notjudgedinaccreditation.

Annualreport measure

Annualreport measure

Std.5:QA system;also annualrpt.

Annualreport measure

Std.5:QA system;also annualrpt.

CostofattendancefortheEPPcomparedwith similarproviders

Exampleof additional consumer information, 4.8

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|43

Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.5:QAsystem; Std.5:QAsystem; alsoannualrpt. alsoannualrpt.

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3

Recommen dations (8)

Exampleof additional consumer information, 4.8 Exampleof additional consumer information, 4.8

Beginningsalaryofcompleterscomparedwith nationaldataforsimilarlocations Patternofplacementlocationsofcompleters, trendsovertime.

Capabilityof quality assurance system,5.3

2. RECRUITMENTANDADMISSIONS
Strategicrecruitmentplans,basedonEPP missionandemploymentopportunities (includingSTEMandELL)forcompletersand needstoserveincreasinglydiverse populations.Includesplansforoutreach, numericalgoalsandbasedata,monitoringof progress,analysesandjudgmentofadequacy ofprogresstowardgoals,andmaking indicatedchanges.Also(1)evidenceof resourcesmovingtowardidentifiedtargets andawayfromlowneedareas;(2)evidenceof marketingandrecruitmentathighschoolsand collegesthatareraciallyandculturallydiverse; and(3)evidenceofcollaborationwithother providers,states,schooldistrictsasan indicatorofoutreachandawarenessof employmentneeds.Peerjudgment. HighschoolGPAforinitialpreparationatthe undergraduatelevel.Comparisonwithhost institutioncohortandovertime. Indicatorof planned recruitment trajectory,even ifgoalsaresome yearsaway,3.1

Std.3: Std.3:Recruitment Admissions

Indicatorof candidateability, 3.2

44|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.1:Candidateknowledge,skills,and dispositions; Std.3:Admissions

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Candidate knowledge,skills anddispositions, 1.1

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Indicatorof candidate performance abilityforinitial preparation admittance duringthe undergraduate years,during preparation;or foradmissionat thegraduate level,3.2,3.4 Admissions indicatorof academicability for undergraduate prep,3.2 Admissions indicatorof academicability for undergraduate prep,3.2 admission criterionfor graduateprep, 3.2,3.4 Admissions indicator,3.2

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

CollegeGPAinspecialtyfieldandin professionalpreparationcourses.Compared withhostinstitutioncohortandovertime.

Std.3:Admissions

ACTorSATscores:admittedcohortaverage comparedwithnationalnormsforinitial preparationattheundergraduatelevel

Std.3: Std.3:Admissions Admissions andduring preparation Std.3: Admis sions

IBorAPexamscores:admittedcohortaverage comparedwithnationalnorms

GRE:admittedcohortaveragecomparedwith nationalnormsforgraduatelevelprogram

Academicawards.Compareovertime.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|45

Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.3: Admis sions

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Admissions indicator,3.2, 3.5 Successful teacher predictionstudy, admissions indicator,3.2

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Std.3::Admissions Std.5:Continuous improvement

Highschoolcoursetaking(e.g.Advanced placement,higherlevelmathandlanguages). Comparewithnationalnorms. Areliable,validmodelthatusesadmissions criteriaotherthanthoseinstandard3.2.The admittedcohortgroupmeanonthesecriteria mustmeetorexceedthestandardthathas beenshownempiricallytopositivelycorrelate withmeasuresofP12studentlearningand development

Exampleofatest ofaninnovation, 5.3

3. PREPARATIONEXPERIENCE MEASURES
Std.2: Partnerships

Memorandaofunderstandingordatasharing agreementswithdiverseP12and/or communitypartners.Peerjudgment. Evidenceoftrackingandsharingdatasuchas hiringpatternsoftheschooldistrict/schoolor jobplacementratescontextualizedby partnersneeds.Peerjudgment. Evidenceofactionsthatindicatecombined resourceallocationandjointdecisionmaking suchas(1)programandcourseadjustmentsto meetpartnershumancapitalandinstructional needs,(2)statedcharacteristicsandrolesfor onsitedeliveryofprogrammaticcoursesand (3)recruitmentofcandidatestomeetdistrict teacherneeds(e.g.inpipelineprograms).Peer judgment. Sharedunderstandingsamongstpartnersthat guideeducatorpreparationcommonwork, rolesandresponsibilities,authority,and accountability.

Std.2:Partnerships

Indicatorof partnership arrangements, 2.1 Indicatorof partnership arrangements, 2.1 Indicatorsof partnership arrangements andfunctioning, 2.1

Std.2: Partnerships

46|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Std.2: Partnerships

Indicatorof partnerships arrangements andfunctioning, 2.1

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.2:Clinicalfaculty

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

IndicatorsofEPP actionstoassure selection, support,and retentionof clinical educators,2.2 IndicatorofEPP actionstoassure opportunities andcandidates toreceive feedbackand coaching,2.3 Candidate performance indicatorsduring clinical experiences; couldbe recurringover time,2.3

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Plans,activities,andresultsrelatedto selectionofdiverseclinicaleducatorsandtheir supportandretention(suchastrainingand supportprotocols,includingimplementation datawithandforclinicaleducatorsinEPP programs.Trendsovertime,peerjudgment. Evidenceofcontinuousopportunitiesfor formativefeedbackandcoachingfromhigh qualityanddiverseclinicaleducators.Peer judgment.

Std.2:Clinical experiences

Std.2:Clinicalexperiences

Performancedataoncandidatedevelopment ofhighleverageinstructional practices/strategiesfromearlyfieldworkto culminatingexperienceindiverseclinical settings(urban,rural,highpoverty,high achievingaswellasnontraditionalsettings, suchasafterschoolprogramsandcommunity recreationprograms);includingbutnotlimited toevidenceofhowproficienciesare demonstratedwith/inadiversityofpartners, settings,andinpartnershipwithschoolbased faculty,familiesandcommunities.Peer judgment. Evidenceofcandidatesgraduated responsibilitieswithintheclassroomand impactonstudentlearning

Std.2:Clinical experiences Std.3:during preparation

Indicatorof candidates development, 2.3

Indicatorof candidates development during preparation,3.4

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|47

Std.2:Clinicalexperiences

Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Candidate performance indicatorduring clinical experiences; couldbe recurring,2.3 Evidenceof developing candidate professional capabilities;2.3

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Evidencethatcandidatesintegratetechnology intotheirplanningandteachinganduseitto differentiateinstruction.Peerjudgment,oran assessmentincludingtechnologyasone amongmanydimensions,andtrendsover time.

Std.1:Contentand Std.3:Nonacademic pedag.knowledge admissionsandduring Std.3:During preparation preparation

Evidenceofcandidatesreflectionon instructionalpractices,observations,andtheir ownpracticewithincreasingbreadth,depth, andintentionwithaneyetowardimproving teachingandstudentlearning(e.g.,video analysis,reflectionlogs).Evaluationbasedon rubrics,peerjudgment. Assessmentsandrubricsusedtoassess teachingpracticeatkeypointsalonga developmentalcontinuum,includingbutnot limitedtodocumentationofexpected instructionalpracticesandcandidate performance Demonstrationofassessmentsofnon academicqualityofcandidatesandhowthese relatetoteacherperformance(studentself assessments,lettersofrecommendation, interviews,essays,leadership,surveys,Gallup measures,strengthfinder2/0,MyersBriggs, personalitytests).Peerjudgment. Analysisofvideorecordedlessonswithreview andevaluationbasedonrubricsand disinterestedraters

Std.1:Cont.andped. Std.2:Clinical know.,EPPrespons. experiences Std.2:Clinical&3, duringprep. ti

Indicatorof candidateability toapplycontent andpedagogical knowledge,1.1, 1.3,and1.4

Indicatorof candidate developing proficiencies,2.3

Indicatorof candidate development during preparation,3.4

Nonacademic factorsat admissionsor during preparation,3.3, 3.4 Indicatorof capacitytouse instructional practiceand InTASC knowledge,1.1 Indicatorof developing candidateabilities; couldbe conducted multipletimes,3.4

48|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.1:Contentand pedag.Knowledge Std.3:During preparation

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Indicatorof candidatecapacity touseinstructional practiceand InTASCknowledge, 1.1

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Indicatorof developing candidateabilities; couldbe conducted multipletimes,3.4 Successful teacher predictionstudy usingnon academicfactors during preparation,3.3 and3.4

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Observationmeasureswithtrainedreview procedures,facultypeerobservationwith rubrics.Progressduringcandidatepreparation, trendsacrosscohorts.Peerjudgment.

Std.1:Contentandpedag. know,provider responsibilities

Casestudyofhowdevelopingnonacademic factorsrelatetosubsequentteacher performance;also,illustratecandidate commitmentanddispositionssuchas(1) teaching,volunteerism,coaching,civic organizations,commitmenttourbanissues; (2)contentrelated,goaloriented,datadriven contributions/valueaddtocurrentemployer ororganization;(3)mindsets/dispositions/ characteristicssuchascoachability,empathy, teacherpresenceofwithitness,cultural competency,collaboration,beliefs,thatall childrencanlearn;or(4)professionalism, perseverance,ethicalpractice,strategic thinking,abilitiestobuildtrusting,supportive relationshipswithstudentsandfamiliesduring preparation.Peerjudgment. Studentperformanceonvalid,reliable assessmentsalignedwithinstructionduring clinicalpracticeexperiences.Trendsovertime. Peerjudgment.

Studyof innovations,5.3

Std.3:Nonacademicfactors,duringpreparation

Performance measuresof candidate applicationof knowledgeand pedagogical skills,1.1,1.3 and1.4

Preservice measureofP12 student performance

Backupmeasure ofP12student performance

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|49

Std.1:Cont.& Std.1:Contentandpedag. pedag.Know, know Std.3:During Std.3:Duringpreparation prep

Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Performance measureof candidate applicationof knowledgeand pedagogical skills,1.1,1.3 and1.4 Indicatorof contentand pedagogical knowledge Indicatorsof candidate opportunityto learnand practiceusesof assessmentto enhance learning,1.1and 1.2 Indicatorof candidates abilitytoapply contentand pedagogical knowledge,1.1

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Indicatorof candidate progressduring preparation,3.4

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

P12studentsurveysoftheirpreservice candidateteachersduringclinicalpracticeand analysisofdataoncandidateinstructional practices

CollegeGPAcomparedwithcontentsubject majors

Std.2: Std.1:Contentandpedag. Clinical know; experiences Std.2:Clinicalexperiences Std.3:Duringpreparation

Assessmentcurriculuminputstopromote candidatesassessmentproficiencies:(1) courseworkfocusedonassessment,(2) embeddedassessmenttopicsincontentand methodscourses,(3)providingcandidates realworldopportunitiestoapplywhatthey havelearnedaboutassessment,and(4)the assessmentstheEPPemploysinallaspectsof preparation. Descriptiveevidenceofcandidatesgraduated responsibilityforallaspectsofclassroom teachingandincreasingabilitytoimpactall studentslearning.Peerjudgment.

Std.1:contentandpedag. know;providersonuseof research; Std.3:Duringpreparation

Candidate qualityduring preparation,3.5 orexitmeasure, 3.5 Candidate progresscuring preparation,3.4

Casestudyoftheeffectivenessofdiversefield experiencesoncandidatesinstructional practices.Peerjudgment.

Descriptive indicatorof candidates experienceof progressively greater responsibilities duringclinical preparation,2.3 Continuous improvement studyonclinical experiences,2.3

Progression measure,3.4

Exampleof innovation testing,5.3

50|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.1:Cont.& Std.2:Clinical ped.knowre experiences asst;Std.3: Duringprep

EvidenceMeasures

(2) Reliableandvalidmeasuresorinnovative modelsofhighqualitypractices,partnerships, clinicaleducators,orclinicalexperiences.Peer judgment.

Abilityofcandidatestodesignandusea varietyofformativeassessmentswithP12 students.Peerjudgment. Cohortcompletersdisaggregatedbyracial, ethnicandothertargetgroupsidentifiedin EPPrecruitmentplans.Indicatetrendsover timeandcomparisonswithsimilarEPPs. Cohorthiresinanyeducationpositionandin fieldforwhichtrainedwithtrendovertime andcomparisonswithsimilarEPPs 4.

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

MeasureofEPP performance, exampleof measuresfor continuous improvement,2.3

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 Recommen EPPQuality dations Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7) (8)

MeasureofEPP performance, exampleof measuresfor continuous improvement,5.3

Indicatorof candidate assessment proficiencies,1.3

Indicatorof completer capabilityin assessment,3.6 Completer program outcome measure5.1 Hiresprogram outcome measure5.1 Annualreport measureof completers Annualreport measureof hires

Annual reporting

Annual reporting

CLINICALCAPSTONEASSESSMENTS
Applicationof pedagogical knowledge,2.3 Indicatorof abilitytoapply contentand pedagogical knowledge,1.1 and1.3 Teaching proficiency,2.3 Applicationof pedagogical knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof teaching proficiency, includingstudent learningand development,3.5

Std.1:Content &pedag. know.; Std.3:Exit Std.1:Cont.&pedag. know; Std.2:Clin.Exp; Std.3:Exit

Videosofteaching:scorescomparedwith rubricvaluesandmonitoredacrosscohorts

Clinicalcapstoneassessments;also,evidence fromaculminatingexperiencewitha significantlevelofcandidateresponsibilityfor allaspectsofclassroomteachingand increasedabilitytoimpactallstudents learninganddevelopment.Subscalescores comparedwithrubricvalues.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|51

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1) EvidenceMeasures Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)
Indicatorof abilitytoapply contentand pedagogical knowledge,1.1 and1.3,1.4

(2)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Multimeasure capstone assessmentsof teaching proficiency,2.3

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Capstone measurewith multiple dimensionsof teaching proficiency, including studentlearning and development, 3.5

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 Recommen EPPQuality dations Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7) (8)

Std.3:During preparationand exit

Standardizedcapstoneassessments: edTPAorETSpreserviceportfolio;sample measuresthatoftenappearintheseformsof assessmentinclude:(1)differentiated instructionbasedongroupandsubgroup resultsonteachercreatedorstandardized assessments(ELL,specialeducation,gifted, highneedsstudents);(2)evidenceof differentiatedinstructioninresponseto studenttestdata;and(3)evidenceofteacher reflectiononpractice.Somemeasuresof studentlearninganddevelopmentincluded. Averagecohortscorescomparedwithnational normsornationalcutscores Providercriteriaforcompletionon opportunitiesforcandidatestoreflecton personalbiases,accessappropriateresources todeepentheirunderstanding,usethis informationandrelatedexperiencestobuild strongerrelationshipswithP12learners,and adapttheirpracticestomeettheneedsof eachlearner.Peerjudgment. Staterequiredperformancemeasures,or otherappropriateperformancemeasures

Std.1:Contentand Std.1:cont.&pedag.kow; pedagogicalknowledge Std.2:clin.exp; Std.2:Clinicalexps Std.3:exit Std.3:Duringpreparation

Indicatoron candidate proficienciesto addressequity concerns,1.1

Indicatorof developing candidate proficiencies,2.3

Indicatorof candidate qualityduring preparation,3.5

Indicatorof abilitytoapply contentand pedagogical knowledge,1.1 and1.3,1.4

Multimeasure capstone assessmentsof teaching proficiency,2.3

Indicatorof completer capabilities,3.4 and3.5

52|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Std.3:Exit

EPPcriteriaforcompletion,withperformance documentationthatallcompletershave reachedahighstandardforcontent knowledge

Completion indicators specifiedbyEPP, 3.5

 Refer enceto Comm. Standard (1)

Std.3:Exit

EvidenceMeasures

(2) EPPcriteriaforcompletion,withperformance documentingthatallcompleterscanteach effectivelywithpositiveimpactonP12 studentlearninganddevelopment

EPPcriteriaforcompletion,withperformance informationindicatingthatallcompleters understandexpectationssetoutincodesof ethics,professionalstandardsofpractice,and relevantlawsandpolicy Teacherofrecordmeasuresforcandidatesin somealternativepreparation:Statesupported measuresthataddressP12studentlearning anddevelopmentthatcanbelinkedwith teacherdata.CAEPguidelinesandpeer judgment.

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Completion indicators specifiedbyEPP, 3.5 Completion indicators specifiedbyEPP, 3.6

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 Recommen EPPQuality dations Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7) (8)

Std.1:applycont&Std.3:Exit ped;Std.3:exit; Std.4:impact; annualreporting

Feedbackon progressof candidates

Feedbackon progressof candidates

Candidate impactonP12 studentlearning and development, 4.1,also

5. LICENSUREANDEXITASSESSMENTS

Measureof contentand pedagogical knowledge,1.1

Exitmeasure,3.4

Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates

Std.1:Contentonpedagogicalknowledge Std.3:Exit Annualreporting

Statelicensureexams:thereshouldbea recommendedspecificandcommoncutscore acrossstates,andapassrateof80%within twoadministrations.CAEPshouldworkwith statestodevelopandemployneworrevised licensureteststhataccountforcollegeand careerreadinessstandards,andestablisha commonpassingscoreforallstates.(Note: RecentreportsfromCCSSO,OurResponsibility, OutPromise:TransformingEducator PreparationandEntryintotheProfession,and fromAFT,RaisingtheBar:Aligningand ElevatingTeacherPreparationandthe EducationProfession,addresspreparationand entryrequirements,indicatinggrowing supportforvastlyimprovedlicensure assessments.)

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|53

 Refer enceto Comm. standard (1)

Std.1:Allareas1Std.1:Allareas Std.1:Allareas Std.1:Allareas Std.3:Exit Std.3:Exit Std.3:Exit Std.3:Exit

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Exitmeasureof content knowledgeand pedagogical candidate knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof general pedagogical knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof content knowledgeand pedagogical candidate knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof general pedagogical knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof content knowledgeand pedagogical candidate knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof content knowledgeand pedagogical candidate knowledge,3.5

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates Annualrpting measurefor licensurepass rates Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates Annual reporting measurefor licensurepass rates

Licensuretest:Praxisspecialtyfield,cohort averagescorecomparedwithstateand nationalnorms

Contentand pedagogical knowledge, provider responsibilities, allcomponents Licensuretest:PrinciplesofLearningand General Teaching,cohortaveragescorecomparedwith pedagogical stateandnationalnorms knowledge,1.1

Licensuretest:Pearson/Statecontent,cohort averagescorecomparedwithstatenorms

Licensuretest:Pearson/State pedagogy,cohortaveragecomparedwith statenorms

Contentand pedagogical knowledge, provider responsibilities, allcomponents General pedagogical knowledge,1.1

54|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Std.1:Allareas Std.3:Exit.

Licensuretest:Pearsononline,cohortaverage Contentand comparedwithstateandnationalnorms pedagogical knowledge, provider responsibilities, allcomponents MassachusettsTestsforEducatorLicensure, Contentand e.g.,ElementaryGeneralCurriculum+Pearson pedagogical FoundationsofReading,cohortaverage knowledge, comparedwithstatenorms provider responsibilities, allcomponents

Std.1:Allareas Std.3:Exit

 Refer enceto Comm. standard (1)

Std.1:Allareasfor Std.1:Apply elem.Prep. cont.&ped. Std.3:ExitforelemKnow/rdng; prep. Std.3:Exit

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Partofcontent pedagogyfor elementary teachersin1.1 Contentand pedagogical knowledgefor elementary teachers,1.1

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Exitmeasureof reading pedagogical knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof content knowledgeand pedagogical candidate knowledge,3.5 Exitmeasureof academicability, 3.5 Content knowledge assessment,3.5

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Annualrpting measureof licensurepass rates Annual reporting measureof licensurepass rates

Connecticut/PearsonFoundationsofReading licensuretest,cohortaveragecomparedwith statenorms ETSPraxistest,ElementaryEducation: MultipleSubjects,cohortaveragecompared withstateandnationalnorms

Std.3:Exit

GRE:exitcohortaveragecomparedwith nationalnorms

Std.1:Content Std.1:Content knowledge knowledge Std.3:exit Std.3:exit

GREfieldtestswhenapplicable,cohort averagescorecomparedwithnationalnorms in: Biochemistry,cellandmolecularbiology; biology;chemistry;computerscience; LiteratureinEnglish;Mathematics;Physicsand Psychology. ETSMajorfieldstests:averagecohortscore comparedwithnationalnorms

Content knowledge,1.1

Content knowledge,1.1 and1.3

Exitmeasureof content knowledge,3.5

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|55

Refer EvidenceMeasures enceto Comm. standard (1) (2) 6. INSERVICEMEASURES

Std.1:applycont&Std.1:applycont& ped;Std.3:exit; ped;Std.3:exit; Std.4:impact; Std.4:impact; annualreporting annualreporting

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Feedbackon progressof completers

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Standard4 Candidate Program Quality, Impact Recruitment, andSelectivity (5) (6)
Feedbackon progressof completers Completer impactonP12 studentlearning and development, 4.1 Completer impactonP12 studentlearning and development, 4.1 Completer impactonP12 studentlearning and development, 4.1 Programimpact measure,4.3

Standard5 Recommen EPPQuality dations Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7) (8)

Annualreport measureof student growth

Valueaddedstudentgrowthmeasureswhere availablefromthestate.CAEPguidelinesand peerjudgment.

StatesupportedmeasuresthataddressP12 studentlearninganddevelopmentthatcanbe linkedwithteacherdata.CAEPguidelinesand peerjudgment.

Feedbackon progressof completers

Feedbackon progressof completers

Annualreport measureof student growth

Std.4:Program impact,student growth;annual reporting

Casestudiesofcompletersthatdemonstrate theimpactsofpreparationonP12student learninganddevelopmentandcanbelinked withteacherdata.CAEPguidelinesandpeer judgment. Employersatisfactionsurvey.Movetoward comprehensivestategatheringofdescriptive data,andreportingandcomparisonswith stateandnationalnormsforsimilartypesof EPPs.Comparetrendsovertime,similar placements. Completerretention.Movetowardcommon reporting.Comparetrendsovertime,similar placements. edTPAforinserviceteachers(whenanin serviceversionbecomesavailable,orif/when otherassessmentsthatprovidevalidand reliableinformationaboutinserviceteaching areavailable).Comparewithcommoncut scoreandtrendsovertime.

Annualreport measureof student growth

Std.4:Program impact,student growth;Annual reporting

Annualreport measureof employer satisfaction

Std.4: Program impact; annual ti

Indicatorof employer satisfaction,4.3 Teacher performance indicatorwith multiple dimensions,4.1, 4.2

56|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

Std.4:Program impact;annual reporting

Annualreport measureof employer satisfaction Annualreport measureof teacher performance

 Refer enceto Comm. standard (1)

Std.4:Program Std.4:Program impact;annual impact;annual reporting reporting

EvidenceMeasures

(2)

Standard1 Contentand Pedagogical Knowledge (3)

Standard2 Clinical Partnerships andPractice (4)

Standard3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, andSelectivity (5)

Standard4 Program Impact (6)

Indicatorsof employer satisfaction,4.3 Programimpact measure,4.4

Standard5 EPPQuality Assuranceand Continuous Improvement (7)

Recommen dations (8)

Annualreport measureof employer satisfaction Annualreport measureof completer satisfaction Partofannual report measureof completer teaching effectiveness Annualreport measureof teaching effectiveness Annualreport measureof retention

Completerpromotionandemployment trajectory.Movetowardcommonreporting. Comparetrendsovertime,similarplacements. Candidatesatisfactionsurvey.Movetoward comprehensivestategatheringandreporting ofdescriptivedata,andcomparisonswith stateandnationalnormsforsimilartypesof EPPs. InserviceP12studentsurveyswithEPP analysisofdataonteacherinstructional practicesintheclassroom.Comparetrends overtimeandcomparewithnationaldata,if available. Inserviceobservationsofteachingwithtrained evaluatorssuchasCLASSorDanielson; comparewithpreservicecapstone assessments Completerretentionin(1)educationposition forwhichinitiallyhiredor(2)othereducation rolebythesameoradifferentemployer; comparewithsimilarEPPsbutmovetostate collectionandanalysisofthesedataby commondefinitionsovertime.

Std.5;quality Std.4:program Std.4:program assurancesystem; impact;annual impact;annual Annualreporting reporting reporting

Partofprogram impactmeasure 4.2

Teaching effectiveness measure,4.2 Oneindicatorof employer satisfaction,4.3

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|57

Endnotes

INTRODUCTORYSECTIONS 1 NationalResearchCouncil[NRC].(2010).Preparingteachers:Buildingevidenceforsoundpolicy,p.180.Retrievedfrom http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882 ACCREDITATIONSTANDARDSANDRECOMMENDATIONS 3 U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2013),Foreachandeverychildastrategyforeducationequityandexcellence,p.12. 3 NRC.(2010),p.180. STANDARD1:CONTENTANDPEDAGOGICALKNOWLEDGE 4 ProgressionlevelsaredescribedinInTASCmodelcoreteachingstandardsandlearningprogressionsforteachers1.0(2011),pp.16 47. 5 CouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficers[CCSSO].(2011).InTASCmodelcoreteachingstandards.Retrievedfrom http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Resources_Listing.html?search=model+core+teaching+Standards NationalBoardforProfessionalTeachingStandards[NBPTS].(2002).Whatteachersshouldknowandbeabletodo.Retrievedfrom http://www.nbpts.org/resources/publications 6 Ball,D.L.,Thames,M.H.,&Phelps,G.(2008).Contentknowledgeforteaching:Whatmakesitspecial?JournalofTeacher Education,59(5),389407. Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinteaching.EducationalResearcher,15(2),414. 7 Schacter,J.,&Thum,Y.M.(2004).Payingforhighandlowqualityteaching.EconomicsofEducationReview,23(4),411430. AmericanCouncilonEducation[ACE].(1999).Totouchthefuture:Transformingthewayteachersaretaught.Anactionagendafor collegeanduniversitypresidents.Washington,DC.:Author.Retrievedfromhttp://www.physics.ohiostate.edu/~jossem/REF/115.pdf Hill,H.C.,Rowan,B.,&Ball,D.L.(2005).Effectsofteachersmathematicalknowledgeforteachingonstudentachievement.American EducationalResearchJournal,42(2),371406. 8 Shulman,L.(1987).Knowledgeandteaching:Foundationsofthenewreform.HarvardEducationalReview,57(1),122. 9 DarlingHammond,L.PowerPointpresentation,SupportingDeeperLearning.E.Elliot,personalcommunication,January29, 2013. 10 Ball,D.L.(2000).Bridgingpractices:Intertwiningcontentandpedagogyinteachingandlearningtoteach.JournalofTeacher Education,51(3),241247. 11 Cochran,K.F.,DeRuiter,J.A.,&King,A.R.(1993).Pedagogicalcontentknowing:Anintegrativemodelforteacherpreparation. JournalofTeacherEducation,44(4),263272). 12 Shulman,Knowledgeandteaching,p.13. 13 InTASCmodelcoreteachingstandards,p.8. 14 Goe,L.,Bell,C.,&Little,O.(2008).Approachestoevaluatingteachereffectiveness:Aresearchsynthesis.WashingtonDC:National ComprehensiveCenterforTeacherQuality. 15 Foradiscussionofthebenefitsoffamilyengagementatdifferentdevelopmentalstages,pleaseseeHarvardFamilyResearch ProjectsFamilyInvolvementMakesaDifferencepublicationseries,availableonlineat http://www.hfrp.org/FamilyInvolvementMakesADifference. 16 CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative.(2010).Frequentlyaskedquestions.Retrievedfrom http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CoreFAQ.pdf 17 NBPTS,Whatteachersshouldknowandbeabletodo. 18 InternationalSocietyinTechnologyEducation(ISTE).(2008)Advancingdigitalageteaching.Retrievedfrom http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/netststandards.pdf?sfvrsn=2 19 HarvardFamilyResearchProject.(2006/2007).FamilyInvolvementMakesaDifferencepublicationseries.Retrievedfrom http://www.hfrp.org/FamilyInvolvementMakesADifference STANDARD2:CLINICALPRACTICEANDPARTNERSHIPS 20 NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation[NCATE].(2010).Transformingteachereducationthroughclinicalpractice: Anationalstrategytoprepareeffectiveteachers.Washington,D.C.:Author.

58|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors


Houck,J.W.,Cohn,K.C.,&Cohn,C.A.(2004).Partneringtoleadeducationalrenewal:Highqualityteachers,highqualityschools. NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress. 22 DarlingHammond,L.,&BaratzSnowden,J.(Eds.).(2005).Agoodteacherineveryclassroom:Preparingthehighlyqualified teachersourchildrendeserve,pp.3839.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass. 23 Grossman,P.(2010).Learningtopractice:Thedesignofclinicalexperienceinteacherpreparation.Washington,D.C.:American AssociationofCollegesforTeacherEducation Ronfeldt,M.(2012).Whereshouldstudentteacherslearntoteach?Effectsoffieldplacementschoolcharacteristicsonteacher retentionandeffectiveness.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,34:1,326. 24 NCATE(2010). 25 NationalCouncilforAccreditationofTeacherEducation[NCATE].(2008)Professionalstandardsfortheaccreditationofteacher preparationinstitutions.Washington,D.C.:Author. 26 NCATE(2010).pp.5,6. 27 Howey,K.R.(2007).Areviewofurbanteacherresidencies(UTRs)inthecontextofurbanteacherpreparation,alternativeroutes tocertification,andachangingteacherworkforce.Washington,D.C.:NCATE. 28 EducationalTestingService[ETS].(2004)Wherewestandonteacherquality:AnissuepaperfromETS,p.3.Princeton,NJ:Author. RetrievedonAugust4,2012,athttp://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/teacherquality.pdf 29 NRC(2010). STANDARD3:CANDIDATEQUALITY,RECRUITMENT,ANDSELECTIVITY 30 NationalCenterforEducationStatistics[NCES].(2011).Americanshighschoolgraduates:Resultsofthe2009NAEPhighschool transcriptstudy.NCES20111462.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEducation.Retrievedfrom http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=20111462Thestudyshowshighschoolgradepointaveragesas3.0foroverall, 2.79forcoreacademicsubjects,and3.14forotheracademicsubjects.SATtopthirdperformanceisabout1120,andACTis about22.8forEnglishand23.0formath.GREtopthirdonthenewscaleisabout154.6forverbaland154forquantitative.The minimumcriteriamaychangeasstandardsforadmissiontoteachereducationprogramsbecomemorecompetitive;thecriteria shouldreflecthighstandardsusedbystatesandrecommendedbyresearch. 31 Koehler,M.J.,&Mishra,P.(2009).Whatistechnologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge?ContemporaryIssuesinTechnologyand TeacherEducation,9(1),6070. 32 NRC(2010),181. 33 Morrell,J.(2010).Teacherpreparationanddiversity:WhenAmericanpreserviceteachersarentwhiteandmiddleclass.Online Submission.Retrievedfromhttp://www.academia.edu/257521/_Teacherpreparation_and_diversity_when_American_ preservice_teachers_arent_white_and_middle_class. 34 Boser,U.(2011).Teacherdiversitymatters:Astatebystateanalysisofteachersofcolor.CenterForAmericanProgress.Retrieved fromhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/11/09/10657/teacherdiversitymatters/ 35 Dee,T.2004.TheRaceConnection:AreTeachersMoreEffectivewithStudentswhoSharetheirEthnicity?EducationNext.4.2:52 59. Teachers,RaceandStudentAchievementinaRandomizedExperiment.NBERWorkingPaperSeries.NationalBureauofEconomic Research,Cambridge,MA.41WorkingPapers,August2001. Goldhaber,D.,&Hansen,M.(2010).Race,gender,andteachertesting:Howinformativeatoolisteacherlicensuretesting?. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,47(1),218251.Retrievedfromhttp://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/1/218.full.pdf Hanushek,E.,Kain,J.,O'Brian,D.,andS.Rivikin.2005.TheMarketforTeacherQuality.WorkingPaper11154.Retrievedfrom http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154 36 Bireda,S.&Chait,R.(2011).Increasingteacherdiversity:Strategiestoimprovetheteacherworkforce.CenterForAmerican Progress.Retrievedfrom:http://www.americaprogress.org 37 NationalCollaborationonDiversityintheTeachingForce.(2004).AssessmentofdiversityinAmericasteachingforce:Acallto action,p.9.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ate1.org/pubs/uploads/diversityreport.pdf 38 NationalCollaborationonDiversityintheTeachingForce(2004)andBiredaandChait(2011). 39 BiredaandChait(2011),30. 40 Feistritzer,C.E.(2011).ProfileofteachersintheU.S.2011.NationalCenterforEducationInformation.Retrievedfrom http://www.ncei.com/Profile_Teachers_US_2011.pdf 41 NCATE(2010). 42 TeacherShortageAreasNationwideListing:19901991through20122013.(April2012).U.S.DepartmentofEducation,Officeof PostsecondaryEducation.Retrievedfromhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html
21

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|59


Bushaw,W.,Lopez,L.(2011).Bettingonteachers:The43rdannualPhiDeltaKappa/GallupPollofpublicsattitudestowardthe publicschools.PhiDeltaKappan93(1),826. 44 AmericanFederationofTeachers[AFT].(2012),Raisingthebar:Aligningandelevatingteacherpreparationandtheeducation profession.Washington,D.C.:Author. 45 Ball,D.,Hill,H.,Rowan,B.(2005).EffectsofTeachers'MathematicalKnowledgeforTeachingonStudentAchievement.American EducationalResearchJournal.42(2),371406. Floden,R.&M.Maniketti.2005.ResearchontheEffectsofCourseworkintheArtsandSciencesandintheFoundationsofEducation. InStudyingTeacherEducation:ThereportoftheAERAPanelonResearchandTeacherEducation.Eds.CochranSmith,M.&K. Zeichner.(Metaanalysisofpreviousresearch.) Wayne,A.,andP.Young.(2003).TeacherCharacteristicsandStudentAchievementGains:AReview.ReviewofEducationalResearch 73(1).89122.(Metaanalysisofpreviousresearch.) 46 Auguste,B.,Kihn,P.,&Miller,M.(2010).Closingthetalentgap:Attractingandretainingtopthirdgraduatestocareersin teaching:Aninternationalandmarketresearchbasedperspective.McKinsey&Company.Retrievedfromhttp:// mckinseyonsociety.com/closingthetalentgap/ 47 Whitehurst,G.(2002).Strengthenteacherquality:Researchonteacherpreparationandprofessionaldevelopment.WhiteHouse ConferenceonPreparingTomorrowsTeachers.U.S.DepartmentofEducation.Retrievedfrom http://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/whitehurst.html NRC(2010). 48 Levin,H.M.(1970).Acosteffectivenessanalysisofteacherselection.JournalofHumanResources,5(1),2433. 49 Rockoff,J.E.,Jacob,B.A.,Kane,T.J.,&Staiger,D.O.(2011).Canyourecognizeaneffectiveteacherwhenyourecruitone? EducationFinanceandPolicy,6(1),4374. 50 Duckworth,A.L.,Peterson,C.,Matthews,M.D.,&Kelly,D.R.(2007).Grit:Perseveranceandpassionforlongtermgoals.Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,92(6),10871101.AlsoseeHaberman,M.(2000).Whatmakesateachereducationprogram relevantpreparationforteachingdiversestudentsinurbanpovertyschools?(TheMilwaukeeTeacherEducationCenterModel).and Harding,H.(2012).TeachforAmerica:Leadingforchange.EducationalLeadership,69(8),5861. 51 Dobbie,W.(2011).Teachercharacteristicsandstudentachievement:EvidencefromTeachforAmerica.HarvardUniversity. Retrievedfromhttp://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dobbie/research/TeacherCharacteristics_July2011.pdf 52 Danielson,C.(2009).Aframeworkforlearningtoteach.EducationalLeadership,66.Retrievedfrom http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/summer09/vol66/num09/AFrameworkforLearningtoTeach.aspx 53 Ball,D.(2008).MathematicalKnowledgeforTeacherandtheMathematicalQualityofInstruction:AnExploratoryStudy.Cognition andInstruction.26(4),430511. 54 MeasuresofEffectiveTeachingProject.(2010).Workingwithteacherstodevelopfairandreliablemeasuresofeffectiveteaching. Retrievedfromhttp://www.metproject.org/downloads/metframingpaper.pdf 55 Lemov,D.(2010).Teachlikeachampion:49TechniquesthatPutStudentsonthePathtoCollege(K12).SanFrancisco:Jossey Bass. 56 Henry,T.,etal.(2012).Theeffectsofexperienceandattritionfornovicehighschoolscienceandmathematicsteachers.Science, 335,11181121.Retrievedfromhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1118.full.pdf 57 Noell,G.,&Burns,J.(2006).Valueaddedassessmentofteacherpreparation:Anillustrationofemergingtechnology.Journalof TeacherEducationVol.57,3750.Retrievedfromhttp://jte.sagepub.com/content/57/1/37.full.pdf+html 58 Whitehurst(2002). 59 NRC(2010) CCSSO(2011). 60 CCSSO(2011). 61 Danielson(2009). 62 See,forexample,Rodgers,C.&RaiderRoth,M.(2006),Presenceinteaching.Teachersandteaching:Theoryandpractice,12(3) 265287.SeealsoBarker,L.&Borko,H.(2011).Conclusion:Presenceandtheartofimprovisationalteaching.InSawyer,R.K.(ed), Structureandimprovisationincreativeteaching(279293).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Seealso,JointprojectofStanford UniversityandAACTEtodevelopapreserviceeducationteacherperformanceassessment.SeedescriptionatthisURL: http://edtpa.aacte.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/usingedTPA.pdf STANDARD4:PROGRAMIMPACT
43

NRC(2010). UniversityofWisconsin,ValueAddedResearchCenter(2013),StudentGrowthandValueAddedInformationasEvidenceof EducatorPreparationProgramEffectiveness:AReview,DraftpreparedforCAEP.

64

63

60|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors

65Ewell,P.(2013).ReportofthedatataskforcetotheCAEPCommissiononStandardsandPerformanceReporting,CAEP. AmericanPsychologicalAssociation(2013).ApplyingPsychologicalSciencetoUsingDataforcontinuousTeacherPreparation ProgramImprovement,Draft,ReportofaBoardofEducationalAffairsTaskForce. UniversityofWisconsin,ValueAddedResearchCenter(2013). 66 Ferguson,RonaldF.(2012).Canstudentsurveysmeasureteachingquality?PhiDeltaKappan,94:3,2428.

STANDARD5:PROVIDERQUALITYANDCONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT

Ruben,B.R.(2010).Excellenceinhighereducationguide.Anintegratedapproachtoassessment,planning,andimprovementin collegesanduniversities.Washington,D.C.:NationalAssociationofCollegeandUniversityBusinessOfficers. BaldrigePerformanceExcellenceProgram.(2011).20112012Educationcriteriaforperformanceexcellence.Gaithersburg,MD: Author. 68 TheuseofdevelopmentisbasedonInTASCsStandard#1:LearnerDevelopment.Theteacherunderstandshowlearnersgrow anddevelop,recognizingthatpatternsoflearninganddevelopmentvaryindividuallywithinandacrossthecognitive,linguistic, social,emotional,andphysicalareas,anddesignsandimplementsdevelopmentallyappropriateandchallenginglearning experiences. 69 NRC.(2010). Bransford,J.,DarlingHammond,L.,&Lepage,P.(2005).InL.DarlingHammond,&J.Bransford(Eds.),Preparingteachersfora changingworld.Whatteachersshouldlearnandbeabletodo(pp.139).SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass. Zeichner,K.M.,&Conklin,H.G.(2005).Teachereducationprograms.InM.CochranSmith,&K.M.Zeichner(Eds.),Studyingteacher education(pp.645735).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. NCATE.(2010). 70 Ewell,P.(2012).Recenttrendsandpracticesinaccreditation:ImplicationsforthedevelopmentofstandardsforCAEP.Washington, DC:CAEP. 71 LangleyG.L.,NolanK.M.,NolanT.W.,NormanC.L.&ProvostL.P.(2009).Theimprovementguide:Apracticalapproachto enhancingorganizationalperformance(2nded).SanFrancisco:JosseyBassPublishers. 72 Bryk,A.S.,Gomez,L.M.&Grunow,A.(2010).Gettingideasintoaction:Buildingnetworkedimprovementcommunitiesin education,Stanford,CA:CarnegieFoundationfortheAdvancementofTeaching.Essayretrievedfrom http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/spotlight/webinarbrykgomezbuildingnetworkedimprovementcommunitiesineducation ADDITIONALRECOMMENDATIONSOFTHECAEPCOMMISSION 73 Ewell,P.(2012). 74 NRC(2010).pp.182,183. CROSSCUTTINGTHEMES 75 NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,DigestofEducationStatistics,Table44,2012U.S.DepartmentofEducation. 76 BureauoftheCensus(2001).Population5YearsandOverWhoSpokeaLanguageOtherThanEnglishatHomebyLanguageGroup andEnglishSpeakingAbility,AppendixTable1.Retrievedat:http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/ACS12.pdf 77 U.S.DepartmentofEducation,op.cit.,p.22. 78 AdaptedfromInTASC(2011). 79 TheuseofdevelopmentisbasedonInTASCsStandard#1:LearnerDevelopment.Theteacherunderstandshowlearnersgrow anddevelop,recognizingthatpatternsoflearninganddevelopmentvaryindividuallywithinandacrossthecognitive,linguistic, social,emotional,andphysicalareas,anddesignsandimplementsdevelopmentallyappropriateandchallenginglearning experiences.

67

RECOMMENDATIONSONEVIDENCEINACCREDITATION 80 Ewell,P.(2013).Reportofthedatataskforce. 81 Ewell,P.(2013).PrinciplesformeasuresusedintheCAEPaccreditationprocess,CAEP. 82 Ewell,P.(2012).Recenttrends. 83 Kahl,Stuart,Hofman,Peter,&Bryant,Sara,(2013),Assessmentliteracystandardsandperformancemeasuresforcandidatesand practicingteachers,PreparedfortheCouncilfortheAccreditationofEducatorPreparation.

CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors|61


Ruben,B.R.(2010).Excellenceinhighereducationguide.Anintegratedapproachtoassessment,planning,andimprovementin collegesanduniversities.Washington,D.C.:NationalAssociationofCollegeandUniversityBusinessOfficers. Baldrige(2011). Bryk,A.S.,Gomez,L.M.&Grunow,A.(2010). 86 CouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficers[CCSSO].(2012).Ourresponsibility,ourpromise:Transformingeducatorpreparationand entryIntotheprofession.Washington,D.C.,Author,p.22. 87 CCSSO(2012).p.22. 88 Ewell,P.(2013).Reportofthedatataskforce. 89 34CFR602.16,AccreditationandPreaccreditationstandards.
84

62|CAEPCommissionRecommendationstotheCAEPBoardofDirectors