Heuristics for the quality principles and capacity standards

TEAC has adopted a part/whole heuristic for guiding the next stage of the panel’s decision-making. This heuristic calls for the panel to consider the components of each element, make a decision about each, and move on successively to the consideration of each element in the TEAC system until the panel can determine by vote the program’s conformity to one of the TEAC accreditation categories.

By this time in its deliberations, the panel would have determined whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the claims associated with each component in the system, (1.1 through 4.7). Once that is determined, the panel takes up the major elements of the TEAC system (1.0 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0) in accordance with the guidance provided in heuristic tables 1–4.

Quality Principle I. The factors that the panel considers in its evaluation of the evidence of student learning are presented in the first column of heuristic table 1 along with the characteristics of Quality Principle I (element 1.0), which determine whether it is above or below TEAC’s standard.

The above standard column defines a goal, which means that some programs may be well above the threshold for meeting the standard while others may be just above the below standard mark.

An Inquiry Brief that is well above standard has compelling and persuasive evidence, from several mutually consistent and representative sources, about each component and has received a clean opinion in the audit.

A Brief that is at the standard might have received a qualified audit opinion on element 1.0 evidence that was, if not compelling, at least sufficient for, and consistent with, its claims of student learning on each component of Quality Principle I.

However, if the preponderance of below standard attributes adheres to the Inquiry Brief, the panel would find the Brief below standard on Quality Principle I.

The cross-cutting liberal arts themes (learning-to-learn, multicultural perspective, and technology) are parts--or subcomponents--of the components of Quality Principle I: sub-jet-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and caring teaching skill. If the evidence for them is weak, the panel may cite a formal weakness. If the weakness is severe enough to undermine the claims for subject matter knowledge, etc. altogether, the weakness may be cited as a stipulation.

Quality Principle II. The factors that contribute to the evaluation of Quality Principle II (2.0, the evidence for valid assessment of student learning), are presented in heuristic table 2.

This element of the system has two interrelated components: the rationale for the validity of the assessments (2.1); and the empirical evidence that supports the faculty’s interpretation of validity (2.2). In evaluating the methods the faculty employs to secure evidence of student learning, the panel must balance the credibility of the rationale for the validity of the assessments (2.1) and the empirical evidence of the validity of the measures (2.2).

It is possible, for example, that the empirical evidence for reliability and validity (2.2) could be weak, but that overall the rationale that the assessments were trustworthy and on tar-get could be compelling. Authentic assessment approaches sometimes fit this case where the evidence is persuasive, but the usual evidence for reliability and validity, if acquired at all, is lacking. In this case, the panel could find Quality Principle II above standard on the strength of a compelling rationale for the assessments (2.1), coupled with a feasible plan to secure better evidence of validity about the methods used to procure evidence of student learning.

Or, it could be the other way around. The program could be found to satisfy Quality Principle II if the panel determines that the program provides compelling and persuasive empirical evidence that the assessments were valid, but its rationale for the assessments is relatively weak. This might happen in the case of some standardized tests: they have sound reliability and validity statistics, but the faculty’s rationale does not make a credible connection between the test and the program’s goals, the faculty’s claims for the program, or the program’s requirements.

Quality Principle III. The panel bases its evaluation of Quality Principle III (3.0) on the evidence of institutional learning. The factors for the evaluation are presented in heuristic table 3.

The evidence that supports Quality Principle III is found in the program’s internal audit report. The internal audit report shows that the program has addressed each capacity standard, and if it did not address one, other elements in the quality control system compensated for the absence. A program, for example, might have an open admissions policy (no evidence of selection for quality), but also evidence that other elements in the quality control system enhanced quality and compensated for the weakness or absence of admission standards.

A quality control system (QCS) is successful not only when it addresses each capacity standard, which it must, but also when it identifies factors, issues, and problems that the program faculty should address to improve their program. These problems and issues are documented in the record of decisions the faculty has made over the years, and in the faculty’s plans to undertake the inquiries needed to improve their program.

When the QCS identifies problematic areas in the program, the faculty is expected to consider ways to remedy the problem and formulate a plan to improve the program. The principal test of whether a modification in the program is an improvement, and not simply a change, is its link to the subsequent evidence of greater student learning that enhances the faculty’s claim that the program’s graduates are competent, caring, and qualified.

Over time, the faculty members’ ongoing inquiry and research efforts, called for in Quality Principle III, should be able to uncover important links between the capacity dimensions and appropriate levels of student learning. Quality Principle III requires that there is a plan to undertake these investigations as a part of the normal workings of the program’s QCS.

Capacity for Program Quality (4.0). The program faculty needs to provide evidence-based and verifiable responses to 4.1.1–4.7.2 to satisfy the requirements of 4.0. The factors that contribute to the panel’s conclusion about whether the program has sufficient capacity to offer a quality program are presented in heuristic table 4.

The heuristic that guides the panel in its deliberations about 4.0 has three parts. These are associated generally with three lines of evidence that support the claim that the program seeking accreditation is offered by an institution and faculty that have the capacity to offer a quality program. These three lines of evidence are

1. Evidence that the program’s QCS addresses 4.1.1–4.7.2 (covered for Quality Principle III in heuristic table 3 and in heuristic table 4);

2. Evidence of parity between the program and the institution with regard to features the program has in common with the other programs given by the institution (determined by the auditors);

3. Evidence of sufficiency with regard to the unique features of a professional education program.

The TEAC system has a mechanism or provision for ensuring quality with regard to each of the capacity components (4.1–4.7). As required for Quality Principle III, in its internal audit of the QCS, the program examines each component (4.1–4.7) of the program’s capacity for quality. The program’s findings in the internal audit, as verified by TEAC’s audit report, provide one line of evidence that supports the conclusion that the program monitors each component of capacity for its connections to the quality of the program. The Discussion section of the Inquiry Brief also documents the program’s record of improving the quality of the program through the instrument of its quality control system (3.1) and also gives the program’s plan for acting on the evidence of student learning it has found over the years and at present.

The panelists consider the factors cited in heuristic table 4 when they deliberate about whether or not the Inquiry Brief contains sufficient evidence that the program faculty has the capacity to offer a quality program. The panel comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient overall capacity when the evidence for the preponderance of subcomponents (4.1.1–4.7.2) is consistent with that conclusion.

Issues in evaluating capacity for quality
One key indicator that the program has the capacity for quality is if the program is either superior to or indistinguishable from other programs in the institution with regard to the components of capacity. Because all accreditors recognized by the U.S. Department of Education have capacity standards for the seven areas covered by TEAC 4.1–4.7, the institution’s accreditation by a regional accreditor in good standing, or the equivalent, is required by TEAC because it signifies that the institution overall has the capacity for quality.

The capacity of a professional education program for quality, while rarely investigated directly by a regional accreditor, can be established in the Inquiry Brief when the program faculty can show that the program conforms to, or exceeds, the institutional norm on each of the dimensions of program quality that are shared by the program and the institution’s other programs.

On this line of reasoning, TEAC requires evidence that the institution is committed to providing sufficient capacity for program quality. This commitment is shown by the fact that the institution’s investment in the program with regard to the curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative support, student services, and respect for student views conforms to the overall institutional standards in each of these areas. Each of these institutional standards, of course, has previously met the capacity standards of an accreditor recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The details of the metrics associated with the seven components of capacity are left to the institution to craft with the provision that they be applied uniformly across all programs the institution offers.

TEAC’s interest in the institutional commitment to the capacity of the program for quality extends beyond TEAC’s standards on capacity, however. TEAC seeks to assure itself and others that the institution is serious about teacher education, and that it is committed to the continual improvement of the quality of the programs it offers. The institution can be said to be committed to the program when it supports the program at the same level as, or better than, its support of the institution’s programs as a whole.

The program faculty also needs to provide evidence that the capacity the program enjoys, even when on a par with the capacity of the institution overall, is sufficient for a quality professional education program. For this reason TEAC ‘s capacity standards include subcomponents, in addition to those devoted to parity and the QCS, which specifically address the evidence of the sufficiency and adequacy of the program’s capacity for quality.

Return to the Accreditation Panel