Q&A on CAEP as NCATE and TEAC Transition to a Unified Accrediting BodyMarch 5th, 2012
CAEP Accreditation Foci, Process, and Recognition
What can educator preparation providers expect from CAEP in 2012?
The three accreditation paths currently offered will continue under CAEP: Continuous Improvement, Inquiry Brief, and Transformation Initiative.
- These three paths are all characterized by a commitment to continuous improvement and transformation.
- The Continuous Improvement and Inquiry Brief paths continue to function as they have, guided by existing frameworks and supported by the same staff teams throughout the transition.
- Transformation Initiatives are major R&D undertakings and can be conducted by one provider or a group of providers. The Transformation Initiative path is now in pilot mode through 2015, and we encourage preparation providers to consider it. A Committee on Transformation Initiatives has been named to help develop policies pertaining to this accreditation path and vet preparation provider proposals.
How will CAEP build on the strengths of NCATE and TEAC?
- CAEP is characterized by a continuous improvement focus, which both NCATE and TEAC have emphasized in the past.
- CAEP will continue the expectation for preparation providers to collect and analyze data, and to use that data for program improvement.
- CAEP will continue a two-step accreditation process in order to provide feedback to preparation providers prior to the on-site visit. The CAEP pre-visit feedback process will combine features of NCATE’s off-site review with features of TEAC’s formative evaluation process.
What will be new in CAEP?
- CAEP will feature a streamlined seven year accreditation visit with more targeted annual reporting of key outcome data and substantive changes, which provides constituencies with more pertinent information.
- NCATE and TEAC already expect programs to collect data on candidate performance continuously, and CAEP is committed to supporting continued improvement in data quality and increasingly effective use of data by all programs.
- CAEP will feature new decision rules for accreditation decision-making. This will help ensure increased consistency and accuracy in decision-making.
- CAEP will feature a list of recommended evidence sources, which is being updated and refined now.
- CAEP will feature a new Program Review with Feedback option, providing three options for states to select from as paths for program review.
What is the status of the transition to CAEP?
NCATE and TEAC are already in the process of transferring non-accreditation functions to CAEP and expect to complete these tasks no later than December, 2012. Because the U.S. Department of Education requires CAEP to perform a small number of accreditation decisions before it recognizes the new accrediting body, the transfer of accreditation functions will take place during 2013. However, those institutions with visits planned through 2014 will continue under current guidelines appropriate to the pathway selected.
What is the status of CHEA recognition?
NCATE and TEAC are pursuing CHEA recognition of CAEP as soon as possible. In the interim, NCATE and TEAC each currently have applications pending for re-recognition under CHEA. NCATE and TEAC will retain CHEA recognition status as we proceed with recognition of CAEP. Given that CAEP is a new organization, Jim Cibulka and Mark LaCelle-Peterson are consulting with CHEA to determine how CAEP recognition can be expedited. CHEA will work with us to determine the most time-efficient approach to CAEP recognition.
What new set of standards is CAEP developing, and how has the development process been working?
Initial Standards Now
CAEP has initial standards right now which were generated by the NCATE and TEAC joint design team two years ago and encompass current NCATE and TEAC standards.
A Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting was announced at the AACTE Annual Meeting in Chicago. A release to the press is forthcoming.
The Commission will be composed of distinguished leaders from all sectors of the field with broad experience and deep expertise.
The Commission’s agenda for the standards will be ambitious and will necessarily include reports and events which have transpired in the two years since the initial CAEP standards were completed. Some of the major reports, events, and policy context impacting the development of the new accreditation standards include
- Common Core Standards;
- InTASC standards;
- the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers (2010);
- National Research Council report, Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy (2010), which highlights the following three areas within preparation for intense focus: content, clinical experiences, and quality of candidates;
- the increasing diversity of learners in 21st century schools and the need to differentiate instruction;
- the need to increase P-12 student achievement in all schools, especially student achievement in high needs schools;
- TNE Learning Network’s research agenda and focus on clinical preparation;
- the McKinsey study on academic qualifications of teacher candidates in America versus other developed nations; other studies on recruiting/admissions in educator preparation; and
- the increasing number of pathways to teacher licensure.
The Commission’s work should take approximately one year. The draft standards will be made available for public comment and a final version is expected to be adopted by the CAEP Board during 2013.
Vision for the Future for CAEP and for Educator Preparation Providers
What is the vision for CAEP five years from now?
- CAEP will increase the use of key outcome data for accreditation decision making—which states are increasingly placing online and providers have access to—for example, new and better performance measures.
- CAEP will be discussing initial results of expanded research into how the components of preparation programs contribute to candidate and graduate effectiveness, and preparation providers would make changes to preparation programs accordingly.
- A national conversation on performance measures would have taken place, with the field embracing common definitions for program components—i.e., clinical experience, etc.–so that benchmarking against other like providers can occur.
- (That point is somewhat speculative because we are not clear how much performance data will have been made available, but these are our optimistic assumptions!)
- All states have partnerships with CAEP to increase the rigor of preparation, and increase the efficiency (state use of market data and placement data) and effectiveness of programs.