1. STANDARD 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D.
Accreditation Director
Banhi Bhattacharya, Ph.D.
Accreditation Director
Senior Director of Program Review TR

2. Session Overview
This session focuses on the key language and intent of CAEP Standard 1for Initial-licensure.
Content references the evidence sufficiency criteria handout.
The Advanced-level standards are not covered in this presentation.  
Please attend the session dedicated to those standards or access the presentation materials for guidance.
Forewarn that they will be asked to reflect on possible evidence sources and should be prepared to take notes. Time for Q&A is scheduled at the end.

3. EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES
CONSULT: 
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria
Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard 2
CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content
2017 SSRs can present plan with progress data
Site visits in F18 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in
Assessment Sufficiency Criteria
 CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments

4. Evidence Sufficiency Rules for Standard 1
General for all Standards
Special for Standard 1
Key concepts in standard and components are addressed
EPP-created assessments meet CAEP’s assessment sufficiency criteria
At least three cycles of data that are sequential and most recent available
Results disaggregated by specialty field area (when appropriate)
Also for main and additional campuses, on site and online programs (if applicable)
Data/evidence analysis includes discussion of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences.
No required components
All data disaggregated by specialty licensure area
Evidence from Standard 1 cited in support of continuous improvement, part of overall review system

5. Standard 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline [components 1.1, 1.3] and, by completion, can use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards [component 1.4].

6. Component 1.1 – Key Language
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.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate developing an understanding over time in these four categories?

7. Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.1
CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE UNDERSTANDING OF 10 InTASC STANDARDS
All four of the InTASC categories are addressed with multiple indicators across the four categories
Multiple indicators/measures specific to application of content knowledge in clinical settings are identified
Data/evidence are analyzed including identification of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences
Averages at/above acceptable levels on EPP’s scoring indicators, on InTASC standards (categories)
If applicable, demonstrate candidates’ performance is comparable to non-candidates’ performance in same courses or majors
Performances indicate competency and benchmarked against the average licensure area performance of other providers
Interpretations and conclusions are supported by data/evidence

8. EPP Created- Assessments
Standard 1,
component Clinical Experience/Observation Instruments -Lesson/Unit Plans
-Portfolios
-Teacher Work Samples
-GPA, Courses Specific to P-12 Learner -Dispositional Data
-Comparisons of Education and other IHE attendees on provider end-of- major projects
-End of Course/Program Assessments
-Pre-Service Measures of Candidate Impact
-Capstone/Thesis
+ Proprietary Assessments/Measures
+ State Assessments/Measures
EPP Created- Assessments
Initial Standards
(suggested evidence)
Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments 

9. Component 1.2 – Key Language
Providers ensure that candidates 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.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate using research and assessment (evidence) for student and professional learning?

10. Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.2
CANDIDATES USE RESEARCH/EVIDENCE TOWARD TEACHING PROFESSION
Data/evidence document effective candidate use of:
Research/evidence for planning, implementing, and evaluating students’ progress
Data to reflect on teaching effectiveness and own practice
Data to assess P-12 student progress and then modify instruction based on student data

11. Component 1.3 – Key Language
Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate the application of content knowledge and in response to other professional standards?

12. Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.3
CANDIDATES APPLY CONTENT/PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE; IN RESPONSE TO SPAs
Licensure area questions are completed/supported by analysis/accurate interpretations of specialty licensure area data
Note: The Specialty Licensure Area Questions are:
How have the results of specialty licensure area or SPA evidence been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
What has been learned about different specialty licensure areas as a result of the review of the disaggregated data?
How does the specialty licensure area data provide evidence for meeting the state-selected standards?
How is specialty licensure area evidence aligned with the identified state standards?

13. PROGRAM REVIEW and THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS STandard 1, component 1.3

14. VOCABULARY
 EPP: Educator Preparation Provider that prepares professionals in various licensure or certification areas to serve in a P-12 setting
PROGRAM: A planned sequence of academic courses and experiences leading to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, or some other credential that entitles the holder to perform professional education services in schools (P-12)
CANDIDATES: Pre-service educators
STUDENTS: P-12 students
SPA: Specialized professional associations
SPA Program Report: A report submitted at a program level to provide evidence to meet standards developed by SPAs
SPA RECOGNITION REPORT/DECISION REPORT: Report providing SPA feedback and recognition decision– used as partial evidence for CAEP Standard 1 BB

15. PROGRAM REVIEW: INTEGRAL TO CAEP ACCREDITATION (Initial-Level Certification)
Program review decisions factor into CAEP Standard 1, component 1.3, which says:
“Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).” BB

16. CAEP SCOPE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
CAEP accredits EPPs
EPP-offered programs leading to licensing degrees, certificates, or endorsements of P-12 professionals fall under the scope
Programs accredited by other national accrediting bodies (CACREP, NASM, etc.):
EPP may choose to exempt from review by CAEP (will not be recognized as accredited by CAEP)
EPP may choose to include in the CAEP accreditation process (will be included in EPP-wide assessments, annual report, and program review)

17. PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS
CAEP-state agreements determine program review options for EPPs within state (28 agreements signed to date)
Available program review options for EPPs in states with agreements:
SPA review with National Recognition (3 years prior to site visit)
CAEP program review with feedback (part of self-study report)
State review of programs (determined by state)
Available program review options for EPPs in states without agreements:
State review of programs (EPP coordinates with state to obtain and provide state agency report) BB

18. EXAMPLES: STATE-SELECTED PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS*
SPA REVIEW
REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK
STATE REVIEW
ARKANSAS X
DELAWARE -
INDIANA
KANSAS
NEW JERSEY
* Information on program review options by state is available on the CAEP website:

19. QUESTIONS THAT PROGRAM REVIEW ADDRESSES
What degree of competence in content knowledge do candidates demonstrate?
Can candidates successfully develop a conceptual plan for their teaching and other professional education responsibilities?
Can candidates implement their conceptual plan with students and colleagues?
Are candidates effective in promoting student learning?
Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?

20. PRESENTING PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE FOR CAEP ACCREDITATION
CONSIDER: 1. Did the EPP update the program review option in AIMS for each program? 2. Does the program list match the licensure, certification, or endorsement programs list on the EPP’s catalog? 3. Does the selection of program review option meet CAEP state agreement (if applicable)? 4. Does the program level evidence (SPA report, state agency report, self-study addendum) presented on the self-study report match the selected review option? Remember: 1 licensing program = 1 review option  evidence type

22. SPA PROGRAM REVIEW OPTION WITH NATIONAL RECOGNITION
Two Steps in CAEP Accreditation Process if Selecting SPA Review Option: Step #1: Initial review report submitted to SPA three years prior to site visit (Program level review) Example: Site Visit in Fall 2020  Initial SPA review in Fall 2017 Step #2: Self-study report submitted to CAEP nine months prior to site visit (Provider level review) Example: Site Visit in Nov  Self-Study report in Mar. 2020 BB

23. SPA REVIEW EXPECTATIONS: WHAT THE SITE TEAM WILL LOOK FOR
INITIAL REVIEW DUE DATE: 3 years prior to site visit
Example: site visit in Fall 2020  initial SPA review in Fall 2017
SPA reports initiated more than three years before = old data
Did the EPP receive an extension to account for older Recognition Reports?

24. PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: SPA REVIEW
What evidence will the site team look for?
A SPA Recognition/Decision Report
3 year-out timing of Initial Review: “All Programs”  Review by” column  …(history)
How will the site team determine if CAEP expectations are met when an EPP selects the SPA option?
Minimum sufficiency criteria: 51% of the total number of programs selecting SPA review option have full National Recognition from a 3 year out submission
Which SPA recommendations on the Decision Report will be used?
Comments in Part E (Areas for consideration)
Comments in Part F (Additional comments)
SPA decisions or conditions for the program to address in Part G

25. SPA REVIEW: TIMING AND CYCLES
PURPOSE:
Gather evidence for current accreditation cycle (CAEP Standard 1)
Initiate process to receive full National Recognition by visit date
Initiate process to continue prior National Recognition status before expiration
REVIEW CYCLES: 2 times per year
Spring Cycle Due Date: March 15
Fall Cycle Due Date: September 15
Spring Cycle Decisions: August 1
Fall Cycle Decisions: February 1

26. STAGES OF SPA REVIEW PROCESS
INITIAL SUBMISSION: 3 years before site visit
SHELL REQUESTS BEGIN: 1 year before submission date
SHELL REQUESTS ENDS (moving forward): 5 days before submission date (March 10 for spring cycle and September 10 for fall cycle)
SHELL REQUEST SUBMISSION:
List all programs preparing P-12 professionals in each specialization area in AIMS to enable shell request submission
Submit shell requests through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS):
Directions requesting shells provided on CAEP website: and-procedur
CAEP staff creates shells after receiving request

27. SPA REVIEW: DISCUSSION ON SELF-STUDY REPORT
The EPP addresses the following questions for programs selecting SPA Program Review:
How was the SPA feedback on specialty licensure area used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
What was learned about different specialty licensure areas as a result of the review of the disaggregated data?
What trends do the comparison of data across specialty licensure areas indicate and how do they provide evidence for meeting the CAEP and state expectations and standards? 
Accreditation Decision: Evidence meets CAEP sufficiency criteria, OR, evidence indicates potential area for improvement (AFI) 21

28. PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK
What is CAEP Review with Feedback?
An alternative option to SPA and state review
Requires evidence of candidates’ knowledge of content and pedagogical content knowledge for each licensure area program
How do programs report evidence for this option?
Incorporate evidence as part of the self-study report
Analyze data from state licensure exams and/or other proficiency measures required by EPP to demonstrate candidates’ content knowledge in the licensure area
Analyze data to demonstrate candidates’ pedagogical knowledge in the area
Analyze data from assessment of candidates’ impact on student learning in the area
Provide assessment description and scoring guide in each case 22

29. PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK (Cont’d)
How do programs report evidence for this option ?
Address the following questions for each assessment:
What artifact(s) is used to provide evidence?
How was the assessment developed?
How does the assessment provide evidence for meeting standards (next slide)?
How is the quality of the assessment/evidence determined or assured?
What criteria of success were established or measured, and how?
Refer to the Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback: review-with-feedback 23

30. Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback24

31. Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback25

32. PROGRAM REVIEW EVIDENCE: CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK
What standards are used for this option?
As a norm, align the assessments for Initial-Level Programs with the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards on content and pedagogy
Standard 4 (Content Knowledge),
Standard 5 (Application of Content),
Standard 6 (Assessment),
Standard 7 (Planning for Instruction), and
Standard 8 (Instructional Strategies)
If a state requires use of other standards for the CAEP Program Review with Feedback option (state agreement), EPP will align evidence to those standards 26

33. CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK OPTION: TIMING AND PURPOSE
EVIDENCE SUBMISSION: Included as part of self-study report
REVIEWED BY: site team
PURPOSE: 
Gather program level evidence for current accreditation cycle 
Provide evidence for CAEP standard 1 (Initial-Licensure Program) 
Receive formative feedback on meeting CAEP Standard 1 
Feedback used by CAEP’s Accreditation Council to make accreditation decisions
Feedback may be used by states to understand if program meets state expectations 27

34. CAEP PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK OPTION: GENERAL EXPECTATIONS
3 cycles of data submitted and analyzed as part of self-study report
Disaggregated data provided on candidates enrolled for main and branch campuses
Cycles of data must be sequential and latest available
The review is based on guidance provided in the CAEP Evidence Guide

35. PROGRAM REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION ON SELF-STUDY REPORT
The EPP addresses the following questions for programs selecting the Program Review with Feedback Option:
Based on the analyses of the disaggregated data, how are the results of specialty licensure area evidence used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
Based on the analyses of specialty licensure area data, how have individual licensure areas used data as the basis for change?
How do the specialty licensure area data align with and provide evidence for meeting the state-selected (or InTASC) standards? 29

36. Component 1.4 – Key Language
Providers ensure that candidates demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college- and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate skills and commitment to access for all students?

37. Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.4
CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE TO COLLEGE-AND-CAREER-READY STANDARDS 
Multiple indicators/measures specific to evaluating proficiencies for candidate’s ability to 
Provide effective instruction for all students (differentiation of instruction)
Have students apply knowledge to solve problems and think critically
Include cross-discipline learning experiences and to teach for transfer of skills
Design and implement learning experiences that require collaboration and communication skills

38. Standard 1,component 1.4 Suggested Evidence
Evidence specific to college- and career-readiness
Plans, assignments, and observational data demonstrate candidates’ skills for
Deep content knowledge
Eliciting P-12 student application of their knowledge to solve problems and think critically
Cross-discipline teaching
Differentiating instruction
Identifying and interpreting assessments to match P-12 college- and career-readiness goals/objective

39. Standard 1, component 1.5 – Key Language
Providers ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate modeling and application of technology skills to enhance learning for students and self?

40. Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.5
CANDIDATES MODEL AND APPLY TECHNOLOGY
Candidates demonstrate:
Knowledge and skill proficiencies including accessing databases, digital media, and/or electronic sources
The ability to design and facilitate digital learning
The ability to track and share student performance data digitally

41. Standard 1, component 1.5, Technology…
Design
Analysis of Learning and Teaching
Facilitate
Planning for Integration of Instructional Technology
Evaluate
Post-Instruction Evaluation and Review

42. POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 1
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MAY BE CITED WHEN:
Evidence:
Lack of direct evidence for effective teaching of diverse P-12 students
Lack of evidence of candidate modeling and applying technology
Case:
One or more of the four InTASC categories is not informed by EPP evidence, or disaggregated data
Average candidate scores fall below acceptable levels on EPP-created scoring indicators, specific to InTASC categories
Limited or no attempt to measure candidate data literacy
Instrumentation:
Only state-required licensure tests are provided as evidence

43. POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 1
STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN:
Evidence:
Disaggregated evidence for each preparation program
Licensure test scores in the upper half of national median/average field by field or the upper half of state median/average field by field
No plan for the EPP to improve its performance to be in the upper half
Case:
Limited or no evidence and no plan for evidence of college- and career- readiness levels of instruction

44. Cross-Cutting Themes Embedded in Every Aspect of Educator Preparation
Coursework
Diversity
Technology
Fieldwork
Interpersonal Interactions

45. Cross-Cutting Themes of Diversity and Technology
Places in which the cross-cutting themes of diversity and technology must be explicitly addressed through evidence are identified by the following icons in the CAEP Evidence Tables.
= diversity and
= technology

46. Themes of Diversity and Technology
Standard 1
Candidates must demonstrate skills and commitment that provide all P-12 students access to rigorous college and career ready standards.
Technology
Standard 1
Endorses InTASC teacher standards.
Providers are to “…ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improving learning and enrich professional practice.”