CONNECT WITH CAEP | | CAEP Standard 3: Candidate quality, recruitment and selectivity Jennifer Carinci, Director of Research, Innovation, and Data Strategy CICU May 27, 2105

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Session Overview The main ideas of the standard – The Commission’s “case” for this standard – Standard 3 meaning and intent Some examples of evidence that CAEP would expect to find in self-studies – Examples of evidence that visitors should look for – Indicators that CAEP criteria are not met A deeper look at the standard Resources Q&A

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standard 3: Candidate quality, recruitment, and selectivity The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, 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. This process is ultimately determined by a program’s meeting of Standard 4.

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standard 3 Ensuring candidates’ quality is a continuing and purposeful part of EPP responsibilities—“the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program”  Recruit for academic ability and diversity (component 3.1),  Admit considering high academic ability/achievement (3.2, Board requires to be met)  Try out or set non-academic factors (3.3)  Monitor developing candidate abilities (3.4),  Insist on high exit achievements (3.5)  Insist on professional/ethical understanding (3.6) Ultimately validated by Standard 4, program impact

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | The Commission’s case for this standard Research on academic ability/ achievement of teachers Other factors—both academic and non-academic We strive for a diverse education workforce For all the diverse students we need more able teachers Focus on P-12 student learning Convergence of views, US and international

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standard 3: meaning, intent CAEP criteria (in 3.2) based on consistency and durability of research on academic ability/ achievement of teachers associated with P-12 student learning  Board has requested a study to examine in more detail, including the “normed-test” performance levels above 50% Non-academic factors are important but less research concurrence on which ones in particular Education workforce should have the same diversity as the P-12 student enrollment Outcome of interest is P-12 student learning Convergence of views, U.S. and International

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Standard 3: meaning, intent--continued Need to be more selective, but also need more diversity Need to be selective and therefore need to recruit Need selectivity at admissions but also throughout the program Need academic qualifications but also non- academic abilities Need to reach challenging academic criteria but EPPs can offer alternative criteria EPPs need to prepare candidates for available jobs

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Examples of evidence from the Standards Recruitment plans  based on mission and employment opportunities  Baseline and year by year targets; results  evidence of marketing to diverse schools, collaboration Data collected from applicants  GPA from high school; GPA from college, comparisons with other majors in the same courses  ACT, SAT, AP, IB, SAT II, honors, awards, high school courses Case studies of assessments of candidates  demonstrating developing responsibilities in the classroom and impact on P-12 learning, at least two data points  Evidence of developing dispositions or behaviors such as “grit”, leadership, perseverance, communications

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Evidence to look for in the self-study documentation for Standard 3, candidate quality, recruitment and selectivity Recruitment plan with:  Outreach strategies to reach diverse and academically able applicants  Numerical goals and baseline data on admitted cohorts  Evidence that goals are based on completers’ existing and forecast employment opportunities, including STEM, ELL, hard to staff schools  Evidence that progress is monitored  Evidence that progress is analyzed, its adequacy judged, its results used; recruitment strategies are refined if needed

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Evidence to look for in the self-study documentation for Standard 3, candidate quality, recruitment and selectivity --continued Admissions criteria and the cohort average are explicit so they can be compared with CAEP minima  “CAEP minima” = 3.0 GPA and* top 50% on normed test of academic achievement/ ability for the cohort average  Board policy requires that EPPs “demonstrate the quality of the admitted candidates” The Board has mandated a further study of the higher normed test performance levels stated in component 3.2 SAT, ACT and GRE are examples, not requirements (could also be, e.g., AP, IB, SAT subject assessments, Cambridge, etc.)  EPP can use different academic criteria, or non-academic criteria in lieu of CAEP minima They provide data from a reliable model with P-12 student learning outcomes * “or” for advanced programs

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | 3.2 Board Clarification [Board amendment adopted February 13, 2015] CAEP will work with states and providers through this transition regarding nationally or state normed assessments.  Implementing the 50% normed test criterion but deferring the higher levels while a study is undertaken that could influence when, whether and what the higher levels might be Alternative: “a reliable, valid model that uses admissions criteria other than those stated in this standard”)  EPPs are required to meet 3.2 to earn full accreditation

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Evidence to look for in the self-study documentation for Standard 3, candidate quality, recruitment and selectivity--continued NON-ACADEMIC FACTORS—EPP establishes attributes and dispositions at admissions and/or during the program:  Evidence that factors were selected from research or practice knowledge  EPP associates results with impact on P-12 student learning MONITORING CANDIDATE PROGRESSION:  Two or more measures from key decision points  Measures on developing proficiencies in critical areas; e.g., candidate’s: Ability to teach at college and career ready levels Content knowledge Pedagogical knowledge and skills Developing dispositions Ability to integrate use of technology into instruction Impact on P-12 student learning

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Evidence to look for in the self-study documentation for Standard 3, candidate quality, recruitment and selectivity--continued EXIT STANDARDS—Evidence used as part of the documentation for Standard 1.  Could cross reference the exit measures  Could also provide evidence documenting rigor of the exit requirements EXPECTATIONS OF THE PROFESSION—indicators of candidate’s understanding of ethics, professional standards of practice, relevant laws and policies  Evidence from course materials, state assessments, proprietary assessments

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Some findings from the Visitor’s review will indicate that the self-study does not meet minimum criteria for Standard 3 Examples for recruitment  No evidence that recruitment is used as a strategy for improvement  No demonstration that EPP is knowledgeable of the employment market for its completers Examples for admissions selectivity  Documentation indicates that CAEP minima are not met, nor planned  If alternative criteria are claimed, there is lack of evidence that the criteria have been, or are being, validated Examples for other components  Non-academic factors not employed, or there are only anecdotal results  Lack of indicators of candidate progress or evaluations at key decision points  No specific criteria for judging candidate understanding of professional expectations

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | A deeper look Need to be more selective, but also need more diversity Need to be selective and therefore need to recruit Need selectivity at admissions but also throughout the program Need academic qualifications but also non- academic abilities Need to reach challenging academic criteria but EPPs can offer alternative criteria EPPs need to prepare candidates for available jobs

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Resources CAEP Accreditation Manual – CAEP Evidence Table p CAEP Accreditation Manual CAEP Commission Rationale for Standard 3 Examples of research into nationally normed tests Nine Facts about the SAT that might Surprise You An SAT Validity Primer Examples of work EPPs are doing investigating the use of non- academic factors at admission – from Spring 2015 CAEPCon Beyond Academic Ability II: Embedding an Assessment of Dispositions into an Educator Preparation Program Beyond Academic Ability II: Embedding an Assessment of Dispositions into an Educator Preparation Program Evidence of Dispositions: Beliefs and Behaviors NASDTEC: Model Code of Ethics for Educators

CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Questions and Contact Information Jennifer E. Carinci Director of Research, Innovation, and Data Strategy