1. OCTEO April 1, 2016 Margaret D. Crutchfield, Ph.D. mdc1501@yahoo.com
Accreditation’s Role in Preparing Educators to Lead Successfully: Providing Relevant and Effective Evidence to Meet the CAEP Standards
OCTEO April 1, Margaret D. Crutchfield, Ph.D.

2. What are we going to talk about today?
New CAEP Resources
Update on Advanced Programs
Update on Component 3.2
A look at effective evidence---the primary issues noted in Formative Feedback Reports in Fall 2017

3. New Resources Accreditation Manual, March 2016
New(ish) CAEP Assessment Rubric
New webinars
Guidance for Plans
Presentations from Spring CAEP Conference
All can be found at CAEP web site/Accreditation and Program Review/CAEP Accreditation Resources

4. Implementation of Advanced Standards: Timeline
Feedback on proposed policies
Fall 2015 – Report from Working Group
Feedback on Advanced Standards closed in March
Spring of 2016—Revision of Draft Guidelines based on feedback from the field
CAEP Board action in June 2016
Summer of 2016 – Draft of Advanced Standards Guidelines
Fall 2016
Advanced Standards process in the CAEP Accreditation Handbook
Phase-in plan similar to the initial phase-in plan will be in place

5. Timeline for Submission of Advanced Level Programs
If the EPP’s self study is due before September 1, 2017, the EPP does not submit the EPP’s advanced level programs for review. The EPP’s accreditation decision is based on initial level licensure areas only.
These initial licensure areas include
Any MAT or Post-baccalaureate licensure areas that lead to initial teaching licensure
What is not submitted before September 1, 2017
Add-on certifications for individuals who already have a licensure area certification
Any advanced level programs for already licensed teachers or administrators

6. Timeline for Submission of Advanced Level Programs
If the EPP’s self-study is due after September 1, 2017, the EPP must submit their advanced level programs as well as their initial licensure programs
If the EPPs site visit is in the Spring of 2018, it will still depend on the self study due date. The self-study is submitted 8 months before the date of the site visit.
If the EPP’s site visit is in the fall of 2017, the EPP’s advanced level programs will not be submitted for review. Only the EPP’s initial licensure areas will be submitted for review.

7. Process (still draft)
One self-study report will be submitted for all programs
There will be two sections of the Evidence Room—one for Initial and one for Advanced
EPP will make case for meeting standard at both the Initial and Advanced Levels
Reviewers provide an analysis of the strength of the evidence for each standard for both levels, will recommend AFIS and Stipulations
Current recommendation is that the EPP will receive one decision from the Accreditation Council that addresses both levels

8. Scope (recommendations)
Programs that would need to be reviewed at the advanced level should have the following –
Clear entry point for all candidates
Organized program of study with a progressive and coherent curriculum
Significant clinical component
Clear exit criteria or culminating experience
Designed to have a direct or indirect impact on P-12 learning
If the advanced level program meets all the above criteria, the program must be submitted for review

9. Programs that should be submitted
Degrees, tracks, content specializations, concentration, or advanced level programs beyond initial certification with emphasis on P-12 learning (direct and/or indirect)
Programs that should always be reviewed
Educational Leadership specific to P-12 schools
Curriculum and instruction degree programs
MEd or MS programs specific to P-12 learning/schools
EdD or PhD specific to P-12 learning/schools

10. Update on 3.2
The requirement that the group average performance on nationally normed ability/achievement assessments such as ACT, SAT or GRE is in the top 50%from (currently frozen at this level)
CAEP has received a commissioned report on the impact of 3.2
The report is on the CAEP web site on the Standard 3 page

11. Charge to the research group:
To investigate the viability of CAEP’s benchmarks as identified in option 1 of component 3.2
To inform the CAEP Board of Directors’ discussion and final action on component 3.2
Four streams of evidence were used
In-depth literature review
Empircal data from four states
Extensive survey of all CAEP EPPs (national and international)
Interviews with selected EPP leaders

12. Also…..
CAEP sponsoring or has sponsored a series of focus groups on component 3.2
AACTE
National Board
CAEP Conference
State Clinic

13. All of this information will be evaluated by the Board at its June meeting

14. Focusing on effective evidence:
Evaluating the Formative Feedback Reports (also called Off-site Review) submitted in Fall 2017
Remember—this is a formative process, it is good to know what the team’s concerns are before they come on-site

15. What we’re talking about today
17 Self Study Reports Submitted in Fall 2017
All SI visits
And thus all addressed CAEP standards
All have on-site visits this semester
AFIs and Stipulations in FFR
May be a result of documentation issues, not programmatic issues

16. Some data (average number of AFIs received was 3.5)
Of the 17 FFRs reviewed:
One received no AFIs or Stipulations
Two received AFIs on 2 standards
Six received AFIs on 3 standards
Two received AFIs on 4 standards
Six received AFIs on 5 standards
FFRs that received multiple AFIs for the same standard
Eight received multiple AFIs for Standard 1
Five received multiple AFIs for Standard 2
Three received multiple AFIs for Standard 3
Two received multiple AFIs for Standard 4
Seven received multiple AFIs for Standard 5

17. Number of EPPs that received an AFI for each standard Standard 1 12 9 11 14
Number of EPPs that received a Stipulation for each standard
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
Standard 5 1 5 2

18. Cross Cutting Themes 7 EPPs received AFIs for Diversity
4 received AFIs for Technology

19. Common Issues with Standard 1
Problems with Data
Data not disaggregated by program
Sometimes grouped inappropriately
Did not provide n’s
Did not provide ranges or standard deviations
Did not provide sufficient data (from 3 cycles)
Did not provide analysis of data

20. Did not demonstrate alignment of assessments/data to InTASC four categories
Documentation was incomplete (data missing, instructions to candidates missing, rubrics missing, etc)
Rubrics vague, did not meet Level 3 on CAEP Assessment Rubric
No evidence that EPP is evaluating how candidates are using research and using technology

21. Common Issues with Standard 2
Primary Issue: Little or no evidence of true clinical partnerships as described in the standard
Co-construction of mutually beneficial partnerships
Share responsibility for candidate preparation
Co-select, prepare evaluate, support and retain high-quality clinical educators
Provide professional development
Co-design clinical experiences
etc

22. No evidence of required diverse field and clinical experiences
No evidence of candidates’ use of technology in field experiences

23. Common Issues with Standard 3
Recruitment plan is missing or inadequate
EPP did not provide information about use of normed national test in entrance criteria
No evidence provided on mean GPA’s of candidates at entrance to the program
No clear definition of diversity and the characteristics of diversity that are embedded in the program

24. Common Issues with Standard 4
Primary Issue—extremely consistent across AFIs and Stipulations
EPP has no current process and provides no plan for determining alumni’s impact on student learning
Some used only student teachers
Provide case study but the study is vague, lacks specific information

25. Evidence of employer satisfaction either missing or response rates are very very low (and there is no plan provided about how to increase rates)
Evidence of completer satisfaction either missing or response rates are very very low (and there is no plan provided about how to increase rates)
Assessments and/or surveys do not meet Level 3 on the CAEP Assessment Rubric

26. Common Issues with Standard 5
EPP has not established validity and reliability of all assessments as outlined in CAEP Assessment Rubric
Although the EPP may utilize multiple measures it is not clear how these fit together coherently and are part of a quality assurance system that utilizes these data for continuous improvement
System does not include an assessment of alumni impact on student learning
No documentation of how data are used to improve program

27. Data on some assessments are missing
Data are not disaggregated by program
No documentation of involvement of stakeholders
Rubrics do not meet level 3 on CAEP Assessment Rubric

28. Common Issues with Diversity
EPP has no clear definition of diversity
No evidence of required field and clinical experiences in diverse settings
Assessment and rubric items pertinent to diversity are vague
No recruitment plan

29. Technology
Insufficient documentation to demonstrate candidates’ use of multiple forms of technology
Theme of technology does not appear to be threaded throughout program
EPP survey results indicates program does not ensure that candidates acquire, model and apply technology standards
No plan to address identified weaknesses in technology preparation
Incomplete plan for assessing the integration of technology

30. Selected Improvement Plan
Primary issue is lack of specificity
Follow criteria delineated in Rubric for SIP

31. Questions?