1. CAEP Inquiry Brief Pathway MDE Accreditation Workshop Hope College April 20 & 21, 2016 Dr. Thamizhisai Periyaswamy Dr. Jennifer Palacios-Wirz Klemm Central Michigan University

2. About CMU Academic YearCompleters 2014-2015432 2013-2014443 Over 200 professional education faculty in 5 colleges across campus 20 graduate programs at the master’s, specialist and doctoral levels 26 undergraduate areas of specialized study Maintain over 400 partnerships with P-12 schools globally

3. KEY ELEMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED Self- Study Report Meeting the CAEP Standards Data Internal Audit Phase-in new lines of evidence Cross-cutting Themes Creating pool of evidence

4. Phase III Phase I Phase II Sept 2014 Jun 2015 Oct 1 st, 2015 A Runway with Tasks and Timelines Dec 2014April 2015 1.Form a leadership team 2.Standards alignment matrix (CAEP, In-TASC, ISTE, MDE and CLeaR) 3.Inventory of available evidence and Data 4.Mapping the evidences with standards 5.Identify the gaps and areas for improvement 1.Active discussion around CAEP standards 2.Reviewed PEU quality assurance system 3.Proposed a need for Knowledge Fusion 1.Formation of ad-hoc committees to assess and recommend future plans to meet CAEP requirements 2.Continued data mining in SAP, National Data Warehouse, MDE, etc. 3.Reviewed research literatures and best practices and developed plans 1.Started pilot work - disposition interview, program impact case study, assessment tool revisions 2.Continued data analysis 3.Implemented the Taskstream student performance evaluation system. Internal Audit was conducted. The internal audit evaluated CAEP standards 2 (Clinical Experience); 3 (Selectivity) and 5 (Quality Assurance) CAEP Self-study Report Due CAEP Site Visit – Feb 28 – Mar 1

5. Phase II Sept 2014 Jun 2015 Oct 2015 Dec 2014April 2015 Phase I Phase III CAEP Site Visit – Feb 28 – Mar 1 CAEP Self-study Report Due – Oct 1st  Formed a leadership team  Developed the standards alignment matrix (CAEP, In-TASC, ISTE, MDE and CLeaR)  Compiled the inventory of available evidence and Data  Mapped all the existing evidences with standards  Identified the gaps in addressing the CAEP standards and areas for improvement

6. What Comprises DATA?

7.  Discussions on system of quality assurance and the participation of Professional Education committees (PECC, PEAC, PESAR, CPPC and PEEB) in preparation for CAEP. Phase II Sept 2014 Jun 2015 Oct 2015 Dec 2014April 2015 Phase I Phase III CAEP Site Visit – Feb 28 – Mar 1 CAEP Self-study Report Due – Oct 1st More than one committee provides input to each standards; Each committee provides input to multiple standards

8. Ad-hoc committees for knowledge fusion (a.k.a work groups) 1.Selectivity 2.Clinical Experience 3.PEU Common Assessment Tools 4.Teaching Effectiveness and Program Impact 5.PEU Quality Assurance System  All these committees were tasked to review and recommend plans and processes in moving forward with meeting CAEP expectations. In order to complete the tasks, committees were provided with:  Detailed overview of the respective CAEP standards and evidence guide  Relevant data and research literatures  SWOT analysis on the existing practice at CMU  Proposed plans Phase II Sept 2014 Jun 2015 Oct 2015 Dec 2014April 2015 Phase I Phase III CAEP Site Visit – Feb 28 – Mar 1 CAEP Self-study Report Due – Oct 1st

9. Phase II Sept 2014 Jun 2015 Oct 2015 Dec 2014April 2015 Phase I Phase III CAEP Site Visit – Feb 28 – Mar 1 CAEP Self-study Report Due – Oct 1st Taskstream® Student Performance Evaluation System successfully Implemented. Components of CAEP Standard-5 can be addressed with this implementation. Extensive data mining – Quantitative and qualitative data collected from admissions to after program completion Teacher Education Common Assessment Tools Aligned with new National Standards Case Study Development for Program Impact - to evaluate program completer’s effectiveness and impact on P-12 learning to address Standard 4

10. Inquiry Brief (IB) Pathway CAEP’s Inquiry Brief Pathway emphasizes study of candidate and completer outcomes. It is inquiry-driven, starting from the provider’s questions about the programs’ mission and results. Through the IB process, the provider documents that all 2013 CAEP Standards have been met. – CAEP Accreditation Handbook (2016) Structure of IB Pathway – provider selecting the Inquiry Brief Pathway for its self study would submit a self-study report investigating the provider’s claims. The report addresses Standards 1, 4, and data quality expectations for Standard 5, and an Internal Audit Report that provides evidence that the EPP meets Standards 2 and 3 and continuous improvement expectations for Standard 5. CAEP Contact of IB Pathway Glenda Breaux, Ph.D. | Director, Inquiry Brief Pathway 202.753.1658 Direct glenda.breaux@caepnet.org

11. Inquiry Brief Development 30 Students Randomly Selected Admissions Requirements PRE Clinical Practice Placements Mentor Teachers University Coordinators Training Evaluations Program Requirements Transfer Requirements Course GPA Requirement s Program Retention Program Quality PEU Committee Structure Assessmen ts Program Improvemen t Advising & Support Services Assigned advisors Support Services Dispositions EDU 107 PES Meeting Pre-Student Teaching Concerns Certification Checklist CPR/First Aid Diversity Requirements MTTC Passed 30% Courses Selected Academ ic Senate Approva l of MCS MDE Approva l Bulletin Faculty Quality Hiring Rank Promotion Evaluation Facilities & Equipment Internal Audit

12. Inquiry Brief Development Writing Process –Title Page and Table of Contents –Section 1: Introduction –Section 2: Claims and Rationale for Assessments –Section 3: Methodology –Section 4: Results –Section 5: Discussion and Plan –Section 6: References cited in the Brief –Section 7: Appendices Appendices –Appendix A: Internal Audit Report –Appendix B: Parity and Capacity –Appendix C: Faculty Qualifications –Appendix D: Program Requirements and Alignment with State and National Standards –Appendix E: Inventory of Evidence –Appendix F: Assessment Instruments with a Table of Contents Faculty Approval CAEP Formative Feedback

13. Site Visit Audit team –Saturday travel to EPP –Sunday team begins review of materials –Monday full day on campus –Tuesday half-day with Next Steps meeting/team departs Data Repository –All data are in one digital location/access –Provide a manual for audit team Scheduling –Administration –Faculty –Completers and Candidates –Stakeholders –Clinical Dry Run –Testing off-campus access –Travel time between sessions –Prepare stakeholders –Prepare staff –Matrix of resource points of contact –Have backup plan

14. What we learned… IB format gives EPPs an opportunity to showcase their programs Claims are typically designed to address CAEP Std. 1 –IB format is not necessarily conducive to addressing all standards within the current structure –We developed claims to encompass all CAEP standards Tagging –the CAEP standards must be tagged throughout the self-study document Self-study documents were to be submitted to CAEP email (formative@caepnet.org) –AIMS shell will be updated in near future to allow for direct submission It is never too early to start writing the IB self-study

15. Thank you! Questions?