In Appendix B, the faculty addresses the claim that the program meets TEAC’s standard for capacity to offer a quality program (4.0).

To this point in the Inquiry Brief, the faculty has demonstrated the program meets TEAC’s three quality principles, which by definition means that it is a quality program. However, because TEAC’s role is to assure the public about the quality of professional teacher education programs, TEAC must also be also concerned about the way in which the program meets the quality principles; in other words, its capacity to offer a quality program. For this reason, TEAC requires programs to address and provide evidence of the program’s capacity for quality in seven areas identified by the USDE: curriculum; program faculty; facilities, equipment, and supplies; fiscal and administrative capacity; student support services; recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising; and student feedback (4.1 – 4.7).

The program’s case for capacity. The program faculty can make the case in any way that meets scholarly standards of evidence, but TEAC requires that the faculty address the following basic points in making its case for capacity to offer a quality program:

1. The faculty must show that it systematically monitors the quality of the program and that the members act to continuously improve program quality. TEAC’s Quality Principle III requires that programs have a system of quality control, inquiry, and monitoring that is verified by periodic internal audits; that has ways of monitoring the quality of the curriculum, faculty, facilities, resources, student support services, publications, etc.; and that is sensitive and responds to student comment and complaint. The program’s internal audit report findings will provide one line of evidence that supports the conclusion that each component of capacity is sufficient for program quality.

2. The faculty must also show evidence of institutional commitment to the program and, in particular, evidence that the level of commitment is consistent with the institution’s commitment to its other programs. The program must at least have parity with the institution’s typical academic program with regard to the quality of the curriculum, faculty, facilities, resources, student support services, publications, and the like. By showing that the program conforms to the institutional norm on each of the seven components of program quality, the faculty establishes the program’s capacity for quality.

Further, if the program has parity within the institution, TEAC can then ensure that the program’s capacity for quality is sufficient to meet USDE accreditation standards for the typical academic program. All accreditors recognized by the USDE adhere to the same seven capacity standards: an institution’s accreditation by a regional accreditor in good standing signifies that the institution’s overall capacity for quality has been documented and verified. The institution that offers the program under review by TEAC must be regionally or nationally accredited.

3. The faculty must also address whatever unique capacity is necessary for quality in a professional teacher education program. TEAC recognizes that because the field has no consensus about any standard for unique capacity (other than it is sufficient to ensure that the graduates are competent, caring, and qualified) the program faculty must rely on scholarly speculation, inference, and inquiry in making its case.

Writing Appendix B. Appendix B should be organized by each component of capacity (4.1 through 4.7) with supporting text explicating the program’s evidence for each claim that it has satisfied TEAC’s standards.

Much of the text of Appendix B can simply reference other sections of the Inquiry Brief. The internal audit report findings show how the system monitors and promotes quality. The discussion section of the Inquiry Brief documents the program’s record of improving the quality of the program through the instrument of its quality control system and research plan. Part of the standard for the capacity of the faculty (4.2) for quality is found in Appendix C. Similarly, the standard for the curriculum (4.1) is documented in Appendix D.

An efficient way to document that the program has parity with other programs in the institution is by means of a brief statistical report composed of a table.

Metrics. Institutions have different conventions for measuring capacity in each dimension. They may keep track of their facilities with such measures as square feet per student or faculty member, number of faculty per office, classroom size or students per classroom, proportions of dedicated program space. Similarly, an institution may use various metrics for its equipment (e.g., the number of computers, copying machines, projectors, phones per faculty member or student, the age of its equipment). Faculty workload may be measured by the number of sections or courses, by the number of students served, by student-credit hours, or some similar metric.

TEAC encourages the program faculty to use metrics that may be particularly revealing or persuasive of the program’s capacity for quality.

Return to Inquiry Brief Appendices