Which CAEP Accreditation Pathway Do We Choose?

CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates

Which CAEP Accreditation Pathway Do We Choose?

Brad Duncan, Accreditation Associate (IB Pathway) Nate Thomas, Accreditation Associate (SI & TI Pathways)

http://www.CAEPnet.org


Introductions

• Who we are

• Who you are: How many are from EPPs already accredited by TEAC or

NCATE? How many individuals are new to accreditation?



Session Outline

CAEP process—general framework with common elements Eligibility/Application (if new to accreditation)

EPP Annual Report Program Review Optional Review of Assessment Instruments Formative process Site visit Accreditation Council



CAEP Accreditation Pathways



Distinctive Characteristics: Inquiry Brief (IB) Pathway

• IB Pathway emphasizes study of candidate and completer outcomes.

• EPPs make claims about these outcomes and investigate the extent to which the claims are met.

• The EPP also demonstrates engagement in continuous improvement by describing and probing the functioning of its quality assurance system through an internal audit.



Distinctive characteristics: Selected Improvement (SI) Pathway

• Emphasizes study of the EPP’s program design. EPP presents evidence and supporting narrative on how evidence shows EPP is meeting standards

• EPPs identify focal area(s) in its preparation program to develop an operational plan, called a Selected Improvement Plan (SIP), to improve in these focal areas with measurable yearly objectives showing data-driven improvements.



Distinctive Characteristics: Transformation Initiative (TI) Pathway • Research and Development (R&D) approach to

accreditation emphasizes study of an innovation in the field.

• EPPs develop and conduct research on an aspect of educator preparation, described in a Transformation Initiative Plan (TIP), that will contribute to the research base and lead to stronger practices in preparation.

• EPPs submit a proposal 3-5 years in advance - must be approved before engaging in a TI and need to have support from state education agency.



What is Reviewed?

• Self-study report, including completer competence in specialty/ licensure areas;

• EPP annual reports; • Results of CAEP optional review of assessments and

surveys; • Results from annual reviews of weaknesses and/or

Stipulations; • Evidence of previous Areas for Improvement being

corrected (NCATE-legacy);

• Results on progress of Selected Improvement Plans or Transformation Initiative Plans



Options for Program Review

Program Review options determined by state partnership agreement • “National Recognition” through review by Specialized

Professional Associations (SPAs) • State Review • Program Review with Feedback

Understanding the Three Program Review Options Friday, April 10th, 9:45 – 10:45 am, Vail Room



Optional Instrument Review Improve assessments/surveys before the site visit – EPPs will

have the option to submit assessments three years* before the site visit and will have opportunity to modify assessments/ surveys based on the feedback prior to the site visit

Improve assessments to provide more precise feedback to candidates

Improve the EPP’s ability to drill down into data for evidence leading to continuous improvement

Part of CAEP’s effort to increase capacity for EPPs Optional Early Instrument Evaluation – April 9th, 9:15 – 10:15,

Plaza Ballroom B, E



Writing the Self-Study: Common Elements

• EPP context

• Evidence

• Characterization of the quality of the evidence

• Discussion of results and their implications

• Demonstration of quality assurance



Writing the Self-Study: IB

• EPP context • Evidence identified for each claim (evidence for Standard 1)

• Discussion of rationale and reliability/validity of each source of evidence with respect to the claim it is supporting (evidence for Standard 5) what is it what evidence is available regarding its quality what criteria has been established for successful performance (and why)

• Presentation of results (evidence for Standards 1 and 4)

• Discussion of results and their implications (evidence for Standard 5) what do the reported results mean how are results used in improvement

• Report on internal audit (evidence for Standards 2, 3, and 5)



Writing the Self-Study: The IB Internal Audit

• Description of the quality assurance system (evidence for Standards 2, 3, and 5) Curriculum Faculty Facilities/Resources Candidate Selectivity (evidence for Standard 3) Clinical Partnerships (evidence for Standard 2)

• Description of the procedure followed in conducting the internal audit

• Presentation of the findings, the conclusions that faculty draws from the findings, and a discussion of the implications for the program (evidence for Standard 5)



Writing the Self-Study Report: SI/TI

• EPP context • Evidence uploaded for each standard • Questions related to analyzing evidence, specific to

each standard • Response to previous NCATE Area(s) for Improvement • Submission of SI or TI plan



Writing the Self-Study: The SI Plan

• A description of the focal area for continuous improvement - standard(s)/component(s)/themes

• Rationale for selecting the focal area – Why? What are the baseline data? What are the goals

• Evidence of success – needs to be based on data

• Progress will be reported annually by the EPP and evaluated during the subsequent accreditation visit to determine if components 5.3 and 5.4 of Standard 5 are satisfied

Preparing SI and TI Self-Study Reports – April 9th, 1:15 – 2:15 pm Plaza Ballroom C, F



Writing the Self-Study: The TI Plan

• Significance of the Project

• Quality of the Project Design

• Quality of the Research Design

• Capacity to Conduct the Initiative

• Progress will be reported annually by the EPP and evaluated during the subsequent accreditation visit to determine if components 5.3 and 5.4 of Standard 5 are satisfied



Formative Feedback

• Self-study is reviewed prior to the site visit to evaluate the quality and depth of evidence

• Provides a report to the provider that summarizes its analysis about the accuracy and quality of evidence, what was verified or not, and strengths and weaknesses of the evidence

• Creates a work plan for the site visit investigation indicating evidence trails the visitor team will follow during the onsite visit



The Site Visit

• Activities: site visitors will pursue evidence trails and conduct interviews to validate the evidence provided

• Purpose: site visitors will evaluate the quality of the evidence and identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the standards

• Result: Visit report and EPP response IB: examination and verification of internal audit SI: examination of progress on the development and

implementation of the SI Plan TI: examination of progress on implementation of the TI

Plan



The Accreditation Decision

• Initial and joint reviews resulting in recommendations for accreditation status and weaknesses/stipulations if appropriate

• Components 3.2, 5.3, 5.4, and Standard 4 must be satisfied for Full accreditation status

• EPP representative and Lead Site Visitor are invited to observe initial review of case (virtual or in-person)



Questions?

• Optional Early Instrument Evaluation – April 9th, 9:15 – 10:15 am

• Making Your Case – April 9th, 1:15 – 2:15 pm

• Preparing SI and TI Self-Study Reports – April 9th, 1:15 – 2:15 pm

• Using the Feedback Option – April 9th, 1:15 – 2:15 pm

• Workshop: Reporting your Evidence – April 9th, 2:30 – 3:30 pm

• Using AIMS – April 9th, 3:45 – 4:45 pm

• Investigating EPP Claims (IB) – April 9th, 3:45 – 4:45 pm

• Understanding Program Review Options – April 10th, 9:45 – 10:45 am



Thank you!

Engaged feedback is vital to CAEP. You will have an opportunity to complete a survey at the end of the

conference. Surveys will be sent via email on Friday, April 10. We encourage your participation.

Thank you


Date post:	18-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangquynh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Which CAEP Accreditation Pathway Do We Choose?

Documents