1. Lessons from a CAEP Early-Adopter
Micki M. Caskey, Ph.D.
Leslee Peterson, M.A., M.S.

2. Agenda
Process
Outcomes
Lessons and Tips
Where are we now?

3. Selecting evidence
Process

4. Process 1. Start with the standards Deconstruct standards
Brainstorm evidence
Teacher evaluation data
Includes elements on P12 assessment
Aggregated reports
Comparators/expectations
Presentations to partners
Data review documentation
Process
Based on this example, what evidence could you use for Standard 5.4?
1. Start with the standards

5. Process 2. Compile a list of evidence CAEP Standards with notes
Initial License Program Standards
Key Ideas
Essential meaning
Notes for narrative
1.1 Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility.
Demonstrate InTASC
Candidates need to be familiar with InTASC
Refer to each program curriculum map which aligns with InTASC standards for both courses and assessments.
1.2 Providers ensure that completers use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their own professional practice.
Professional pedagogy
Candidates use data and research in practice
Refer to GSE Conceptual Framework standard "2. Research based practices and professional standards" as evidence of using research, and "4.1 Candidates use evidenced to address problems of practice and make informed educational and therapeutic decisions" as evidence of using student progress
Process
2. Compile a list of evidence

6. Process 3. Compile the list of evidence CAEP Standards with evidence
Where is documentation currently housed for use with CAEP accreditation?
3. Compile the list of evidence

7. Process 4. Tell the story Final Evidence List 5 holistic summaries
Average 15 supporting documents per standard
2 Cross-Cutting themes
4 Tables
10 documents responding to past AFIs
7 Selected Improvement Plan (SIP)documents
Process
Who is on your team? While we were the main writing team, we relied on the help of many:
program coordinators and chairs
admission office
data coordinator
4. Tell the story

8. Process 5. Submit-Revise-Visit Submit and Revise
Received questions from offsite team
Revised documents, added 10 more artifacts
Added more detail to SIP
Site Visit
12 group interviews (80 people)
11 Exhibits
2 School Visits
Process
5. Submit-Revise-Visit

9. Outcomes

10. Outcomes Strengths and recognition
Content Pedagogy/standards coverage (#1)
Partnerships (#2)
Diversification efforts (#3)
Assessment system (#5)
Areas for Improvement
Technology standards (#1.5)
Admission validity (#3.2)
Completer Impact (#4.2)
Assessment reliability and validity (#5.2)
Outcomes
What are your program's strengths? Which standards are hardest for you meet?

11. Lessons & Tips

12. Looking back
Early adopter pitfalls (changing format, no handbook, no rubric, untrained team)
Process was supported (help from CAEP staff, self-study off-site and addendum process)
Strong assessment system bears fruit (maps, data review, assessment fair)
Interviews and exhibits were important (helped fill gaps and highlighted strengths)
Most AFIs match known weaknesses
Lessons

13. Tips Tips Start early Build an assessment culture and system
Have writing time
Number your evidence items, use file naming convention
Consider using google docs (feedback loops and shared authorship)
Call/ CAEP staff with questions; participate in CAEP Con (it is helpful)
Focus onand highlight your EPP’s strenghs
Tips

14. Where are we now?

15. Where are we now? Completing the annual report (AFIs)
Strengthening our reliability and validity of key assessments
Planning a long-term study on admission criteria
Working with advance programs
Improving our technology preparation
Where are we now?

16. Leslee Peterson lesleep@pdx.edu
Assessment Coordinator
Micki Caskey
Associate Dean
Contact Information