Transcript Chepko Presentation 3

Timeline for Accreditation
Handbook and Early Adopters
Stevie Chepko, Sr., VP for Accreditation
[email protected]
Elizabeth Vilky, Sr. Director, Program Review
[email protected]
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Timeline for Accreditation Handbook
• Sept. 17 - Draft 2 of Accreditation Handbook
 Sent to staff
 Sent of Chairs of IB, CI/TI and Chair of Accreditation
Council
 Sent to focus group participants
• Sept. 29 & 30 – Discussion with selected focus groups
at CAEP Conference
• Oct. 10 – Draft 3 of Accreditation Handbook
 Sent to staff
 Sent to Accreditation Council members
 Partners and other stakeholders
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Timeline for Accreditation Handbook
(cont.)
• Oct 26 – 30 – Accreditation Council acts on policy
changes related to procedures in the Accreditation
Handbook
 Discussions in committees on policies and procedures as
defined in the Accreditation Handbook
 Thursday, October 31, 2014 – Accreditation Council
finalizes recommendations to the Board
• Nov. 15 – Recommendation sent to CAEP Board from
Accreditation Council on policy and procedure
changes
• Nov. 20 – Accreditation Handbook uploaded to
CAEP Board site
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Timeline for Accreditation Handbook
(cont.)
• Dec. 4 – 6 CAEP Board Acts on recommendation
from Accreditation Council
 Reviews Policy and Procedure changes
 Once changes are approved, staff will be charged with
making the necessary changes in all documents
• April 1 – Final copy released
 Copies available at CAEP Conference in Denver
 Copy available on-line
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Overview of the CAEP Accreditation
Pathways
Stevie Chepko, Senior Vice President for
Accreditation
[email protected]
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Session Outline
CAEP process—general framework with common elements
 Eligibility: same for all pathways
 Program Review: same for all pathways, but varies by
state
 Self-study
 Site visit: (almost) same for all pathways
 Accreditation Council: same for all pathways
 Annual Reporting Process: (almost) same for all
pathways
 (Pending Accreditation Council and CAEP Board
Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
The Three Pathways
• Continuous Improvement (CI)
• Transformation Initiative (TI)
• Inquiry Brief (IB)
Pathways differ chiefly in what is submitted for the selfstudy:
• Format
• Addressing the Standards
• Demonstrating quality assurance
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Distinctive characteristics: CI
• Format: structured report
• Addressing the standards: EPPs write directly to the
standards with evidence and supporting narrative
• Demonstrating quality assurance: The EPP develops
and implements a data-driven Continuous
Improvement Plan that focuses on improvement with
respect to a selected Standard, Standard
component, or cross-cutting theme
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Distinctive characteristics: TI
• Format: structured report
• Addressing the standards: The EPP writes directly to the
standards with evidence and supporting narrative
• Demonstrating quality assurance: The EPP develops a
Transformation Initiative Plan (sometimes in consortium with
states, schools, or other collaborators) for a rigorous research
investigation of an aspect of educator preparation that will
inform the profession and/or offer research-proven models for
replication of promising practices
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Distinctive Characteristics: IB
• Format: research monograph
• Addressing the standards: The EPP make claims
consistent with its own goals and mission about the
competence of its completers and align the claims
to the Standards
• Demonstrating quality assurance: The EPP describes
its quality assurance system and conducts an internal
audit to determine whether the system is functioning
as designed
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Writing the Self-Study: Common Elements
• EPP context same for all pathways
• Evidence
• Characterization of the quality of the evidence
• Discussion of results and their implications
• Demonstration of quality assurance
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Writing the Self-Study: CI/TI
• EPP context
• Evidence uploaded for each standard
• Five questions for each source of evidence with respect to
the standard it is supporting





what is it
what evidence is available regarding its quality
what criteria has been established for successful performance (and why)
what do the reported results mean
how are results used in improvement
• Response to Area(s) for Improvement (from last review
including legacy)
• Submission of CI or TI plan
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Writing the Self-Study: The CI 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
• Plan for Continuous Improvement – what you are going to
improve on and how
• Evidence of success – emphasis on data quality
• 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
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
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
• In self-study, the progress on the TI proposal is evaluated. Role it
plays in the accreditation decision is in Standard 5.
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Writing the Self-Study: IB
• EPP context
• Evidence identified for each claim
• Discussion of rationale and reliability/validity of each source of evidence with
respect to the claim it is supporting
 what is it
 what evidence is available regarding its quality
 what criteria has been established for successful performance (and why)
• Presentation of results
• Discussion of results and their implications
 what do the reported results mean
 how are results used in improvement
• Report on internal audit
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Writing the Self-Study: The IB Internal Audit
• Description of the quality assurance system





Curriculum
Faculty
Facilities/Resources
Candidates
Clinical Partnerships
• 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.
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
The Site Visit
(almost) same for all pathways
• Activities: site visitors will look at documentation and
conduct interviews of various parties involved in the
EPP
• Purpose: site visitors will evaluate the accuracy and
quality of the evidence
• Result: site visit report and EPP response
• CI/TI: examination of progress on the development
and implementation of the CI Plan or TI Plan
• IB: examination and verification of internal audit
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
The Accreditation Decision
same for all pathways
• Initial and joint reviews resulting in recommendations
for accreditation status and AFIs/stipulations if
appropriate
• Acceptance of recommendations by the
Accreditation Council as a whole
• EPP representative is invited to observe initial review
of case
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Annual Reporting
(almost) same for all pathways
• Submissions made between January and April
• Mostly the same sections, with one pathway-specific
section
• (Pending Accreditation Council & CAEP Board
Approval)
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Questions?
CONNECT WITH CAEP |www.CAEPnet.org| Twitter: @CAEPupdates