STANDARD 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org Banhi Bhattacharya, Ph.D. Accreditation Director Senior Director of Program Review Banhi.Bhattacharya@caepnet.org Washington, District of Columbia September 2017 T R
Session Overview • This session focuses on the key language and intent of CAEP Standard 1for Initial-licensure. • Content references the evidence sufficiency criteria handout. • The Advanced-level standards are not covered in this presentation. Please attend the session dedicated to those standards or access the presentation materials for guidance. Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES CONSULT: • Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard 2 CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content • 2017 SSRs can present plan with progress data • Site visits in F18 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in • Assessment Sufficiency Criteria CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Rules for Standard 1 General for all Standards Special for Standard 1 • No required components • Key concepts in standard and components are addressed • All data disaggregated by specialty • EPP- created assessments meet CAEP’s licensure area assessment sufficiency criteria • Evidence from Standard 1 cited in • At least three cycles of data that are support of continuous sequential and most recent available improvement, part of overall review • Results disaggregated by specialty field system area (when appropriate) Also for main and additional campuses, on site and online programs (if applicable) • Data/evidence analysis includes discussion of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences. Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Standard 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline [components 1.1, 1.3] and, by completion, can use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards [component 1.4]. Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Component 1.1 – Key Language Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning ; content ; instructional practice ; and professional responsibility . Consider : What evidence do I have that would demonstrate developing an understanding over time in these four categories? Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.1 CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE UNDERSTANDING OF 10 InTASC STANDARDS • All four of the InTASC categories are addressed with multiple indicators across the four categories Multiple indicators/measures specific to application of content knowledge in clinical settings are identified Data/evidence are analyzed including identification of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences • Averages at/above acceptable levels on EPP’s scoring indicators, on InTASC standards (categories) • If applicable, demonstrate candidates’ performance is comparable to non- candidates’ performance in same courses or majors • Performances indicate competency and benchmarked against the average licensure area performance of other providers Interpretations and conclusions are supported by data/evidence Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
EPP Created- Standard 1, component 1.1 Assessments -Clinical Experience/Observation Initial Standards Instruments (suggested evidence) -Lesson/Unit Plans -Portfolios -Teacher Work Samples -GPA, Courses Specific to P-12 Learner -Dispositional Data -Comparisons of Education and other IHE attendees on provider end-of- major projects Resource: -End of Course/Program Assessments CAEP Evaluation Framework for -Pre-Service Measures of Candidate Impact EPP-Created Assessments -Capstone/Thesis + Proprietary Assessments/Measures + State Assessments/Measures Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Component 1.2 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their own professional practice. Consider : What evidence do I have that would demonstrate using research and assessment (evidence) for student and professional learning? Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.2 CANDIDATES USE RESEARCH/EVIDENCE TOWARD TEACHING PROFESSION • Data/evidence document effective candidate use of: Research/evidence for planning, implementing, and evaluating students’ progress Data to reflect on teaching effectiveness and own practice Data to assess P-12 student progress and then modify instruction based on student data Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Component 1.3 – Key Language Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM). Consider : What evidence do I have that would demonstrate the application of content knowledge and in response to other professional standards? Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 1.3 CANDIDATES APPLY CONTENT/PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE; IN RESPONSE TO SPAs • Licensure area questions are completed/supported by analysis/accurate interpretations of specialty licensure area data Note: The Specialty Licensure Area Questions are: • How have the results of specialty licensure area or SPA evidence been used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes? • What has been learned about different specialty licensure areas as a result of the review of the disaggregated data? • How does the specialty licensure area data provide evidence for meeting the state-selected standards? • How is specialty licensure area evidence aligned with the identified state standards? Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
PROGRAM REVIEW AND THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS STANDARD 1, COMPONENT 1.3 Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
VOCABULARY 1. EPP: Educator Preparation Provider that prepares professionals in various licensure or certification areas to serve in a P-12 setting 2. PROGRAM: A planned sequence of academic courses and experiences leading to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, or some other credential that entitles the holder to perform professional education services in schools (P-12) 3. CANDIDATES: Pre-service educators 4. STUDENTS: P-12 students 5. SPA: Specialized professional associations 6. SPA Program Report: A report submitted at a program level to provide evidence to meet standards developed by SPAs 7. SPA RECOGNITION REPORT/DECISION REPORT: Report providing SPA feedback and recognition decision – used as partial evidence for CAEP Standard 1 BB
PROGRAM REVIEW: INTEGRAL TO CAEP ACCREDITATION (Initial-Level Certification) Program review decisions factor into CAEP Standard 1, component 1.3, which says: “ Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM). ” BB
CAEP SCOPE AND PROGRAM REVIEW • CAEP accredits EPPs • EPP-offered programs leading to licensing degrees, certificates, or endorsements of P-12 professionals fall under the scope • Programs accredited by other national accrediting bodies (CACREP, NASM, etc.): EPP may choose to exempt from review by CAEP (will not be recognized as accredited by CAEP) EPP may choose to include in the CAEP accreditation process (will be included in EPP-wide assessments, annual report, and program review) Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C. 16
PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS • CAEP-state agreements determine program review options for EPPs within state (28 agreements signed to date) • Available program review options for EPPs in states with agreements: SPA review with National Recognition ( 3 years prior to site visit ) CAEP program review with feedback ( part of self-study report ) State review of programs ( determined by state ) • Available program review options for EPPs in states without agreements: SPA review with National Recognition ( 3 years prior to site visit ) CAEP program review with feedback ( part of self-study report ) State review of programs ( EPP coordinates with state to obtain and provide state agency report ) BB
EXAMPLES: STATE-SELECTED PROGRAM REVIEW OPTIONS* STATE SPA REVIEW REVIEW WITH STATE REVIEW FEEDBACK ARKANSAS X X X DELAWARE X - - INDIANA X - X KANSAS - - X NEW JERSEY X X - * Information on program review options by state is available on the CAEP website: http://caepnet.org/working-together/state-partners/state-partnership-agreements Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C. 18
Recommend
More recommend
