To TEAC or To NCATE:To TEAC or To NCATE:That is the Question!That is the Question!

Presented by:Presented by:

Dr. Mark LaCelle-PetersonDr. Mark LaCelle-Petersonandand

Dr. Donna M. GollnickDr. Donna M. Gollnick

……but to CAEP—that is the answer!but to CAEP—that is the answer!Council for the Accreditation of Educator Council for the Accreditation of Educator

PreparationPreparation

GOALSGOALS

Raise the performance of candidates Raise the performance of candidates as practitioners in the nation’s P-12 as practitioners in the nation’s P-12 schools.schools.

Raise the stature of the profession by Raise the stature of the profession by raising standards for the evidence the raising standards for the evidence the field relies on to support its claims of field relies on to support its claims of qualityquality..

Common Standards for Common Standards for Educator Preparation Educator Preparation

ProgramsPrograms

1)1) Candidates demonstrate Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for professional dispositions for effective work in schools.effective work in schools.

2)2) Data drive decisions about Data drive decisions about candidates and programs.candidates and programs.

3)3) Resources and practices Resources and practices support candidate learning.support candidate learning.

Evidence Required for Each CAEP Option

The three CAEP standards are met.

There is a functioning quality control system used to collect and analyze valid and reliable evidence.

Program planning and decisions are based on evidence of student learning.

Two Accrediting Two Accrediting CommissionsCommissions

Two Commissions will make Two Commissions will make accreditation recommendations to accreditation recommendations to the CAEP board. the CAEP board.

The Commissions will perform the The Commissions will perform the functions currently performed by functions currently performed by NCATE’s Unit Accreditation Board NCATE’s Unit Accreditation Board and TEAC’s Accreditation Panel & and TEAC’s Accreditation Panel & Committee. Committee.

State PartnershipsState Partnerships

New CAEP protocol for contents of state New CAEP protocol for contents of state agreements a top priority for Interim Board.agreements a top priority for Interim Board.

Partnership agreements will be Partnership agreements will be renegotiated with CAEP and will specify renegotiated with CAEP and will specify program-level review options (3 proposed).program-level review options (3 proposed).

Committee of CAEP Board to oversee and Committee of CAEP Board to oversee and recommend policy for the state partnership recommend policy for the state partnership agreements.agreements.

FinancesFinances

Single fee and dues structureSingle fee and dues structure

No AACTE sustaining feeNo AACTE sustaining fee

Scaled by program enrollment & Scaled by program enrollment & inflation adjustmentinflation adjustment

Reduced costs as a goalReduced costs as a goal

Outside consultant built a finance Outside consultant built a finance modelmodel

Four Accreditation Four Accreditation OptionsOptions

• Continuous ImprovementContinuous Improvement• Internal Academic Audit*Internal Academic Audit*• Transformation InitiativeTransformation Initiative• Inquiry Brief*Inquiry Brief*

* Options in the ‘Inquiry/Audit’ * Options in the ‘Inquiry/Audit’ paradigmparadigm

Overview of the NCATE Overview of the NCATE Accreditation ProcessAccreditation Process

TRADITIONALLYTRADITIONALLY

For Initial and Continuing Accreditation, For Initial and Continuing Accreditation, Institutions would:Institutions would:1.1. Respond to PreconditionsRespond to Preconditions

2.2. Prepare an Institutional Report (IR)Prepare an Institutional Report (IR)

3.3. Respond to the 6 NCATE Unit StandardsRespond to the 6 NCATE Unit Standards

4.4. Seek individual Program Approval from all Seek individual Program Approval from all relevant SPAs (Specialized Professional relevant SPAs (Specialized Professional Associations) for each offered Initial and relevant Associations) for each offered Initial and relevant Advanced ProgramsAdvanced Programs

5.5. Participate in an Onsite Accreditation VisitParticipate in an Onsite Accreditation Visit

Changes in the NCATE Changes in the NCATE Accreditation ProcessAccreditation Process

In May 2009, NCATE announced the intent In May 2009, NCATE announced the intent for - for - “Redesign and Transformation of “Redesign and Transformation of Educator Preparation” Educator Preparation” in response to:in response to:

1.1. NCATE IHEs desire for a significantly simplified NCATE IHEs desire for a significantly simplified process to assess their performance in a process to assess their performance in a rapidly changing environment ANDrapidly changing environment AND

2.2. The larger need to transform educator The larger need to transform educator preparation to better meet the urgent preparation to better meet the urgent demands of the nations’s P-12 schools.demands of the nations’s P-12 schools.

Continuous Continuous ImprovementImprovement

The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits.Submit annual reportsDescribe changes in the IR (beginning

with fall 2010 visits)Submit IR 6-12 months before visit for

feedback

The unit will assess itself against the target level of one or more standards.

The process is designed to be more collegial than in the past.

Assessment data keyAssessment data key

What has the unit learned from its data?What has the unit learned from its data? What changes have been made based on the What changes have been made based on the

data?data? What differences have the changes made?What differences have the changes made?

Formative Formative ProcessProcess

IR & exhibits submitted 6-12 months before IR & exhibits submitted 6-12 months before visit.visit.

Offsite BOE Team Offsite BOE Team reviews IR & exhibits months before visitreviews IR & exhibits months before visit writes Offsite BOE Reportwrites Offsite BOE Report

Content of IR by Standard: Prompt #1 (“Big”

question related to standard)

1. What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates’ meeting standards?

2. How does the unit use its assessment system to improve the performance of candidates and the unit and its programs?

3. How does the unit work with school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practice to enable candidates to develop the K,S,PDs to help all students learn?

“Big” question related to standard (continued)

4. How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students?

5. How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of effective educators?

6. How does the unit ensure that its governance system and resources are adequate to prepare candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards?

CI ProcessCI ProcessTimeline Activity

1½ -3 yrs. before visit (beginning in fall 2015)

Programs submitted for national review

6-12 mos. before visit

Institutional report submitted

1-2 mos. after IR is submitted

Offsite review of IR & exhibits by Offsite BOE Team

1 mo. before visit IR addendum submitted

Visit date Onsite visit by BOE Team

1 mo. after BOE report is received

Rejoinder submitted

April/October after visit

Accreditation decision made

Offsite ReviewOffsite Review

6-7 BOE national and state members, state 6-7 BOE national and state members, state consultant, & NCATE staff meet electronically for 3-consultant, & NCATE staff meet electronically for 3-4 hours to4 hours to Review the IR and electronic exhibitsReview the IR and electronic exhibits Prepare the Offsite BOE ReportPrepare the Offsite BOE Report

Statement of evidenceStatement of evidence Feedback on moving to the target levelFeedback on moving to the target level Feedback on correcting previous areas for Feedback on correcting previous areas for

improvementimprovement Areas of concernAreas of concern List of evidence to be reviewed by the onsite List of evidence to be reviewed by the onsite

teamteam

Transformation Transformation InitiativeInitiative

The unit engages in an The unit engages in an initiative for self-initiative for self-improvement and improvement and contribution to the contribution to the improvement & reform of improvement & reform of the profession, including the profession, including learning in P-12 schools.learning in P-12 schools.

Inquiry/Audit OptionsInquiry/Audit Options

ProgramsPrograms (defined by common aims, structure, (defined by common aims, structure, rationale, and evidence) build cultures of inquiry rationale, and evidence) build cultures of inquiry and evidence;and evidence;

Engage in inquiryEngage in inquiry & write an & write an Inquiry BriefInquiry Brief that: that:- focuses on program’s goals for completers,- focuses on program’s goals for completers,- relies on valid evidence that the faculty - relies on valid evidence that the faculty uses,uses,- fosters a cycle of continuous improvement, and- fosters a cycle of continuous improvement, and- includes an internal audit of the quality controls;- includes an internal audit of the quality controls;

Host an auditHost an audit (site visit) of 2 to 3 days by a small (site visit) of 2 to 3 days by a small team of auditors, including a staff member and a team of auditors, including a staff member and a local practitioner, that verifies the local practitioner, that verifies the IBIB..

Questions Questions and Metaphorsand Metaphors

Three Three questionsquestions drive the inquiry/audit drive the inquiry/audit process:process:

1.1.What have What have candidates candidates learned—do learned—do graduates’ knowledge and performance graduates’ knowledge and performance match faculty’s claims? match faculty’s claims?

2.2.What has the What has the faculty faculty learned from the learned from the inquiry?inquiry?

3.3.Does Does institutional capacity institutional capacity support support quality?quality?

Questions and Questions and MetaphorsMetaphors

1.1.Empirical ResearchEmpirical Research: research reports : research reports must meet the standards of scholarship must meet the standards of scholarship via peer-reviewvia peer-review

2.2.Academic AuditAcademic Audit: a quality control : a quality control system is audited by following an ‘audit system is audited by following an ‘audit trail’ through its parts/processestrail’ through its parts/processes

Inquiry/Audit Inquiry/Audit ProcessProcess

Timeline Activity

1 to 2 years before anticipated audit

Program faculty engage in self-study and participate in optional workshops

6 months prior to audit

Inquiry Brief or Program Quality Audit Report submitted for formative feedback

8 weeks prior to audit

IB or PQAR declared ‘auditable.’

Audit visit Two to three auditors, two to three days

Following audit Audit report: agreed upon with program

Semester following audit

Accreditation Panel recommends (program representatives present)

Three times per year

Accreditation Committee decision

Inquiry BriefInquiry Brief

The Inquiry Brief is four things:

1. Scholarly monograph presenting valid, reliable evidence of student learning;

2. Documentation of institutional capacity and commitment (parity and sufficiency criteria);

3. Comprehensive investigation of the quality control system;

4. A plan for further inquiry by the faculty.

Program Quality Program Quality AuditAudit

Comprehensive Internal Academic Audit of:Comprehensive Internal Academic Audit of:

1.1. Student learning assessment system and results;Student learning assessment system and results;

2.2. Reliability and validity of assessments;Reliability and validity of assessments;

3.3. Faculty use of evidence for program improvement;Faculty use of evidence for program improvement;

4.4. Institutional capacity for and commitment to offer a Institutional capacity for and commitment to offer a quality program;quality program;

5.5. Comprehensive, effective quality control system.Comprehensive, effective quality control system.

Inquiry/Audit Inquiry/Audit EvidenceEvidence

Subject Matter Knowledge

Pedagogical Knowledge

Caring and Effective

Teaching Skill

Valid evidence from

reliable measures (validated locally)

Including capacity

for: Independent ongoing learning,

Multicultural perspectives and competence, and

Ability to use technology effectively

CAEP GoalsCAEP Goals

Accreditation of Accreditation of allall educator preparation educator preparation programs to strengthen the field.programs to strengthen the field.

Accreditation processes that are:Accreditation processes that are:

data-driven, data-driven,

inquiry-driven,inquiry-driven,

improvement-focused, andimprovement-focused, and

useful because they generate empiricaluseful because they generate empiricalfindings of local and general interest. findings of local and general interest.

Questions and Questions and AnswersAnswers