Revised Combined Workbook FINAL

CAEP Revised 2022

Standards Workbook

June 11, 2021

Based on CAEP Revised Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation

Adopted by the CAEP Board of Directors December 2020

And CAEP Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

Adopted by the CAEP Board of Directors, June 2016; Amended June 2021

NOTICE: This workbook is in effect for self-study reports submitted by

educator preparation providers preparing for a review to be conducted

using CAEP Revised Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation

scheduled Spring 2022 and beyond. Spring 2022 self-study reports

submitted for educator preparation providers for a review to be conducted

using CAEP Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation must continue to

use the Consolidated Handbook for Advanced Standards only. The CAEP

Consolidated Handbook remains in effect through site visits scheduled

Fall 2021.

1140 19th Street, NW Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Caepnet.org

This page is left intentionally blank.

Contents

Preface 5

CAEP Accreditation Process Timeline 6

Steps in Preparing to Write the Self-Study Report (SSR) 7

The Standards 9

Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation 10

Standard R1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge 10

Component R1.1 The Learner and Learning 10

Component R1.2 Content 12

Component R1.3 Instructional Practice 14

Component R1.4 Professional Responsibility 17

Standard R2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice 19

Component R2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation 19

Component R2.2 Clinical Educators 21

Component R2.3 Clinical Experiences 23

Standard R3 Candidate Recruitment, Progression, and Support 27

Component R3.1 Recruitment 27

Component R3.2 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression 29

Component R3.3 Competency at Completion 32

Standard R4 Program Impact 34

Component R4.1 Completer Effectiveness 34

Component R4.2 Satisfaction of Employers 36

Component R4.3 Satisfaction of Completers 38

Standard R5 Quality Assurance System and Continuous Improvement 40

Component R5.1 Quality Assurance System 40

Component R5.2 Data Quality 42

Component R5.3 Stakeholder Involvement 44

Component R5.4 Continuous Improvement 46

Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation 48

Standard RA.1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge 48

Component RA1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions 48

Component RA1.2 Provider Responsibilities 50

Standard RA.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice 52

Component RA2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation 52

Component RA2.2 Clinical Experiences 54

Standard RA.3 Candidate Quality and Selectivity 56

Component RA3.1 Recruitment 56

Component RA3.2 Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement and Ability to

Complete Preparation Successfully 58

Component RA3.3 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression 60

Component RA3.4 Competency at Completion 62

Standard RA.4 Satisfaction with Preparation 64

Component RA4.1 Satisfaction of Employers 64

Component RA4.2 Satisfaction of Completers 66

Standard RA5 Quality Assurance System and Continuous Improvement 68

Component RA5.1 Quality Assurance System 68

Component RA5.2 Data Quality 70

Component RA5.3 Stakeholder Involvement 72

Component RA5.4 Continuous Improvement 74

Standard 6: Fiscal and Administrative Capacity 76

Standard 7: Record of Compliance with Title IV of the Higher Education Act 78

Appendices 79

Appendix A: CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments & Surveys 79

CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments 79

CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created Surveys 82

Appendix B: Transition and Phase-in Plan Schedules and Guidelines 83

Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation 83

Sufficiency Criteria for Initial-Licensure Preparation Transition Plans 84

Phase-In Plan Schedule for Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation 86

Sufficiency Criteria for Advanced-Level Preparation Phase-In Plans 88

Appendix C: Additional Resources 90

Preface

This CAEP Workbook accompanies the 2022 CAEP Revised Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation

approved by the Board in December of 2020 and is in effect for anyone preparing for a review to be

conducted using CAEP Revised Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation during Spring of 2022 and

beyond. This Workbook, like CAEP’s accreditation policy and procedures, has been written, in part, to

meet requirements established by CHEA and the USDOE. The term “workbook” is used rather than

“handbook” to better reflect its purpose and differentiate it from earlier published aides to help those

preparing for CAEP accreditation.

The Workbook addresses three requests/goals from those who have previously written self-studies and

those currently going through the process:

● It is more targeted and refined, reflecting changes to the revised standards components

themselves. We believe, based on feedback from the field, the revised standards components

eliminate redundancy and improve clarity and we hope the Workbook reflects those same efforts.

● It reflects the style of a workbook in that it provides step by step actions taking a provider from

self-study through site evaluation. Our intention is it is easier to use than a handbook and offers

more examples for possible evidence. You will notice it is substantially smaller in size than

previous versions as a result.

● It updates sufficiency criteria – including for assessments and surveys - and offers transition plan

guidelines for those moving from previous standards components.

It is not uncommon during the standards revisions process to receive many recommendations for the

implementation of the standards. I would like to thank two Board Committees for their collective thinking

on both the standards and workbook. The Equity and Diversity Committee provided invaluable

recommendations on better addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion through the CAEP accreditation

process. As well, the Research Committee systematically reviewed underlying research related to each

standard and component. Additionally, members of the Accreditation Council, the task force on revision

of the standards, and those who volunteered their time to make recommendations and review workbook

drafts provided an invaluable service during a raging pandemic. Finally, thanks to those who responded to

the call for public comment on the standards.

Each EPP has its own mission and faces specific challenges in recruiting, preparing, and supporting

high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to better reflect the

diversity found in America’s P-12 classrooms. Accreditation is a means for EPPs to strive for equity and

excellence in their P-12 educator preparation through evidence and discussion. There is not “one way” to

make a case for accreditation. A goal of the standards revision process was to acknowledge the unique

context each EPP brings. Therefore, this workbook provides a process that anticipates many forms of

evidence, different assessments, differing approaches to candidate recruitment, and multiple ways to

monitor candidate progress and efforts to support them.

Thank you for your pursuit of CAEP accreditation!

Christopher A. Koch, Ed.D.

President

CAEP Accreditation Process Timeline

NOTE: The Initial Accreditation Process and Renewal of Accreditation Process differ. Both

processes are described in greater detail in the Accreditation Policy and Procedures.

Following the submission of the rejoinder response, the Accreditation Council will meet in either the

Fall or Spring semester after the site review.

Steps in Preparing to Write the Self-Study Report (SSR)

A self-study is the process through which an EPP uses CAEP Standards to evaluate its

preparation programs. The self-study report primarily focuses on how the EPP provides

evidence and analysis that its programs are meeting the CAEP standards. There are some

basic steps to consider when beginning the CAEP self-study process. These are not mandates

or requirements. They are suggestions for how a provider might proceed to address the CAEP

components and the accreditation process. When in doubt, contact CAEP staff.

1. Review the CAEP Scope of Accreditation, CAEP Standards, and the Workbook.

The provider should access the CAEP website or Accreditation Policy and Procedures to

review the CAEP Scope of Accreditation to determine which preparation programs are to

be included in the EPP review. Once the provider has identified the EPP programs within

the scope of CAEP review, the provider should study the CAEP Standards for

Initial-Licensure Preparation and Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation, as

applicable, including all components. This Workbook provides examples of “quality of

evidence” and “sources of evidence” as well as “guiding questions” for each component.

These sections are provided as a framework for EPPs to focus their accreditation report.

Providers are welcome to employ evidence different from those described and to select

the ones they believe will make the strongest case the EPP has met each Standard.

2. Review current data and processes against the components. The provider should

consider developing an inventory of the evidence/ data they currently collect, do not

collect, and might begin to collect, in support of the CAEP standard components. Make a

crosswalk grid with the standards/components and the inventory of evidence. Expand

the grid to include the criteria for EPP created tools (data cycles, data quality, need for

revision). The provider documents the processes that it currently conducts, does not

conduct, or may need to begin, related to the CAEP standard components.

3. Engaging internal and external stakeholders in the process. The provider identifies

appropriate internal and external stakeholders to engage in the self-study process at

multiple points. Faculty, staff, EPP leadership, school partners, employers, and school

based clinical educators are informed and included in the accreditation process.

Everyone needs to be able to discuss the accreditation process and their role in

designing, implementing, analyzing and reporting for continuous improvement.

4. Analyze and interpret the evidence, and then formulate the case for each

component. The provider makes a case for meeting each standard component through

evidence, the analysis and interpretation of evidence, and its conclusions demonstrating

the component is met. The provider is responsible for showing it has addressed the

CAEP standard component through evidence and interpretation of evidence in

supporting narrative.Three cycles of data ensure the EPP can adequately discuss trends

within the data and for consistency of findings.

Analysis and interpretation of the evidence:

● Data should be disaggregated and presented in a manner to best inform an

interpretation of patterns, trends, differences, or similarities for demographic groups

or for the EPP's individual preparation programs.

● Multiple sources of data should be used to triangulate and inform different aspects of

each point the EPP chooses to make in the self-study.

● Description of how the provided data inform the EPP’s ability to meet the standard

component, including highlighting confirming and conflicting conclusions from the

data; if disparities are identified, explain the disparities and include steps to remedy

them.

● Illustrate how the data inform the EPP’s continuous improvement.

● Make comparisons between its data and any existing benchmarks, normative

comparisons to peers, or performance standards.

5. Review AIMS and the Self-Study Report Template. As described in Accreditation

Policy and Procedures, CAEP staff will make an electronic Self-Study Report shell

available for the EPP to use -- either within 30 days of an EPP attaining Applicant Status,

or no less than 18 months prior to the expiration of the EPP’s current term. Review the

template for criteria and format. Note file size requirements, number of evidence

allowed, and narrative character limits. In addition, make note of tables and additional

information required for Standard 6. These include a table of faculty qualifications,

program listing, branch campus details, facilities, and copies of current regional

accreditation letters and other programmatic accreditor letters. These items can take

some time to acquire from institutional leadership.

6. Draft the Self-Study Report. Draft a response to each CAEP standard component and

create supporting evidence attachments. While drafting it is important to consider

consistency: a consistent voice in the narrative; consistent representation of data

throughout the report; consistent organization of evidence, including titling, numbering

and tagging of evidence in the narrative. Do not work solely in AIMS. It is strongly

recommended that providers draft their evidences and narrative in another tool and

copy/paste it into AIMS when completed.

7. Submit the Self-Study Report into the SSR Template. The SSR is due in AIMS

9-months prior to the Site Visit. Submitting the evidence, narrative, and required tables is

a time intensive process. It is important to allow ample time to complete the Self-Study

Template in AIMS before the deadline. No tables or weblinks may be used in the

narrative text boxes. Supporting evidence can be uploaded and “tagged” to show

alignment to the appropriate CAEP standard(s) and component(s). It is important to note

that weblinks/hotlinks are deactivated in evidence documents - all documents must be

static.

The Standards

This part of the Workbook presents the text of the CAEP Standards for Initial- Licensure

Preparation together with their associated components. Each section begins with the standard,

then continues with guidelines for preparation of a Self-Study Report, including key concepts

that identify the main points of the standards and components language, guiding questions,

descriptions of quality evidence with possible sources of evidence, and connections to other

components. It is important to note that the guiding questions and descriptions of quality

evidence with possible sources of evidence are not exhaustive as EPPs may have different

evidence based on EPP systems, structures, and/or mission.

The designation of R before standards and components are used to differentiate the 2022

revised standards from their previous counterparts (the 2013 standards).

Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation

Standard R1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

The provider ensures that candidates develop an understanding of the critical concepts and

principles of their discipline and facilitates candidates’ reflection of their personal biases to

increase their understanding and practice of equity, diversity, and inclusion. The provider is

intentional in the development of their curriculum and clinical experiences for candidates to

demonstrate their ability to effectively work with diverse P-12 students and their families.

Component R1.1 The Learner and Learning

R1.1 The Learner and Learning

The provider ensures candidates are able to apply their knowledge of the learner and learning at

the appropriate progression levels. Evidence provided should demonstrate that candidates are

able to apply critical concepts and principles of learner development (InTASC Standard 1),

learning differences (InTASC Standard 2), and creating safe and supportive learning

environments (InTASC Standard 3) in order to work effectively with diverse P-12 students and

their families.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence that

candidates are able to apply their knowledge

of:

○ Learner development (e.g.,

cognitive, linguistic, social,

emotional, physical)

○ Learning differences (e.g., individual

differences, diverse cultures and

communities, prior knowledge and

experiences, multiple perspective,

cultural norms, language

development)

○ Learning environment (e.g.,

individual and collaborative learning,

positive social interaction, active

engagement in learning, self

motivation)

● How does the EPP know candidates can

apply the InTASC standards relating to:

○ learner development?

○ learning differences?

○ the learning environment?

● How does the EPP know candidates are

prepared to teach diverse learners under the

different situations they may encounter on

the job?

● How does the EPP assess candidate

examination of their own personal biases?

● How are EPP candidates able to engage

families in the P-12 learning process?

● How does the EPP evidence demonstrate

increasing complexity in candidate

application of the learner and learning

○ Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the

learner and learning (e.g.,

candidates believe all learners can

achieve at high levels, examine and

understand their personal biases,

persist in supporting and scaffolding

all learners, respect learners as

individuals, make learners feel

valued, promote respect among

learners)

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

aligned with the InTASC Learning

Progression for Teachers?

● How does the EPP define equity, diversity,

and inclusion in relation to the learner and

learning?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents candidates’ application of P-12 student growth and development

and of individual differences across cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical

areas as well as individual differences and diverse cultures and communities.

● Disaggregated evidence indicates that candidates understand student growth and

development across racial/ethnic demographic populations.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidences:

○ Differentiated planning for learners (unit plan, lesson plan)

○ EPP created measures

○ Performance-based assessments

○ Differentiated assessments (task, communication, response, materials)

○ Studies of student populations for purposes of planning and differentiation

Connections

R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.2 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), R3.3

(Competency at Completion)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Component R1.2 Content

R1.2 Content

The provider ensures candidates are able to apply their knowledge of content at the appropriate

progression levels. Evidence provided demonstrates candidates know central concepts of their

content area (InTASC Standard 4) and are able to apply the content in developing equitable and

inclusive learning experiences (InTASC Standard 5) for diverse P-12 students. Outcome data

can be provided from a Specialist Professional Associations (SPA) process, a state review

process, or an evidence review of Standard 1.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence

candidates are able to apply their

knowledge of:

○ Central concepts, tools of inquiry,

and structures of discipline specific

to content

○ Accessible and meaningful learning

experiences to ensure mastery of

content

○ Content specific pedagogy (e.g.,

connecting concepts, using differing

perspectives, engaging learners in

critical thinking, creativity and

collaborative problem solving;

encouraging learner exploration,

discovery, and expression across

content areas)

○ Diversity and equity in content

knowledge (e.g., intentional design

and implementation of inclusive

curriculum, awareness that content

knowledge is culturally situated,

teaching with multiple perspectives,

promoting critical analysis, awareness

of and responsiveness to bias,

inclusion of authentic and global

issues)

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

● How does the EPP ensure candidates

know central concepts of their content

area and are able to apply the content in

developing equitable and inclusive

learning experiences for diverse P-12

students?

● How does the evidence demonstrate

increasing complexity in candidate

application of the content aligned with

the InTASC Learning Progression for

Teachers?

● How does the EPP define equity,

diversity, and inclusion in relation to

content knowledge?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence demonstrates candidates can apply critical concepts and principles in their

discipline and pedagogical knowledge in their content field.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Framework

for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Framework for Evaluation of

EPP-Created Surveys

Possible sources of evidences:

○ Outcome assessments submitted as part of the SPA National Recognition or state

approval process or used for internal review of programs using specialty area

standards.

○ EPP created measures

○ Proprietary measures (e.g., edTPA rubrics related to content, PPAT rubrics related

to content, Praxis Content Exams)

○ State Required Licensure measures

Connections

R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.2 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), R3.3

(Competency at Completion)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Component R1.3 Instructional Practice

R1.3 Instructional Practice

The provider ensures that candidates are able to apply their knowledge of InTASC standards

relating to instructional practice at the appropriate progression levels. Evidence demonstrates

how candidates are able to assess (InTASC Standard 6), plan for instruction (InTASC Standard

7), and utilize a variety of instructional strategies (InTASC Standard 8) to provide equitable and

inclusive learning experiences for diverse P-12 students. Providers ensure candidates model

and apply national or state approved technology standards to engage and improve learning for

all students.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence

candidates are able to apply their

knowledge of:

○ Multiple methods of assessment to

monitor learner progress and guide

decision making.

○ Planning instruction that draws on

content knowledge, curriculum,

cross-disciplinary skills, and

pedagogy to support every student

in meeting rigorous learning goals.

○ Variety of instructional strategies to

encourage learners to develop

content knowledge and content

connections to build skills and

knowledge in meaningful ways.

○ Technology for enhancement of

P-12 learning. (e.g., design

authentic learning activities that

align with content area standards

and use digital tools and resources

to maximize active, deep learning)

○ Diversity and equity in instructional

practice (e.g., adapt instructional

resources and assessments to

create culturally responsive,

equitable learning opportunities;

making accommodations in

assessment conditions; identifying

● How does the EPP know candidates can

apply the InTASC standards relating to

measuring P-12 students’ progress?

● How does the EPP know candidates can

apply the InTASC standards relating to

planning for instruction?

● How does the EPP know candidates

understand and can apply the InTASC

standards relating to using a variety of

instructional strategies?

● Describe the evidence that

demonstrates effective integration of

technology as supported by state or

national technology standards.

● How does the evidence demonstrate

increasing complexity in candidate

understanding and application of

instructional practice aligned with the

InTASC Learning Progression for

Teachers?

● How does the EPP define equity,

diversity, and inclusion in relation to

instructional practice?

● How do the EPP’s candidates identify

potential biases and adapt instructional

resources and assessments to create

culturally responsive, equitable learning

opportunities?

and using learner strengths and

needs; respenting learners’ diverse

strengths and needs; using of

formative assessment; openness to

adjustment and revision based on

learner needs)

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence demonstrates candidates have developed proficiencies to apply their content

and pedagogical knowledge effectively in instruction and other interactions with diverse

P-12 students.

● Evidence indicates that candidates are proficient in the applications of technology for

enhancement of P-12 learning.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidences:

○ Assignments or tasks from courses

○ Assignments or tasks from clinical experiences

○ Proprietary assessments (e.g., edTPA rubrics related to instructional practice,

PPAT rubrics related to instructional practice, Teacher Work Sample-TWS rubrics

related to instructional practice)

○ Pedagogical knowledge tests

○ Observational measures

○ Digital portfolios demonstrating application of national or state technology

standards

Connections

R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.2 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), R3.3

(Competency at Completion)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Component R1.4 Professional Responsibility

R1.4 Professional Responsibility

The provider ensures candidates are able to apply their knowledge of professional responsibility

at the appropriate progression levels. Evidence provided should demonstrate candidates engage

in professional learning, act ethically (InTASC Standard 9), take responsibility for student

learning, and collaborate with others (InTASC Standard 10) to work effectively with diverse P-12

students and their families.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence that

candidates are able to apply their knowledge

of:

○ Professional standards of practice,

relevant laws, and policies and codes

of ethics.

○ Collaboration with learners, families,

and colleagues and other school

professionals to ensure learner

growth.

○ Engagement in ongoing professional

learning and using evidence to

continually evaluate his/her practice,

particularly the effects of his/her

choices and actions on others

(learners, families, other

professionals, and the community).

○ Diversity and equity in professional

responsibility (e.g., adaption of

practice to meet needs of each

learner; taking responsibility for

learning of all students; deepening

understanding of own frames of

reference and potential bias; seeing

role as one of advocacy for learners

and accountable for learner success;

embracing challenge of continuous

improvement and change)

● How does the EPP know candidates can

apply the InTASC standards relating to

professional learning and ethical

practice?

● How does the EPP know candidates can

apply the InTASC standards relating to

collaboration and leadership?

● How does the EPP ensure candidates

have knowledge of professional

standards of practice, relevant laws, and

policies and codes of ethics?

● How does the evidence demonstrate

increasing complexity in candidate

understanding and application of

professional responsibility aligned with

the InTASC Learning Progression for

Teachers?

● How does the EPP define equity,

diversity, and inclusion in relation to

professional responsibility?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence of candidates’ understanding of professional standards of practice, relevant

laws and policies and codes of ethics, reflections addressing own cultural background,

unconscious biases and systemic biases, and ability to collaborate with learners, families,

and colleagues to ensure learner growth

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidence:

○ Course assignments or tasks

○ EPP created measures

○ Dispositions assessments

○ Relevant sections of state licensure requirements

○ Required state/EPP ethics training

Connections

R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.2 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), R3.3

(Competency at Completion)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Standard R2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Clinical Partnerships and Practice

The provider ensures effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to

candidate preparation. These experiences should be designed to develop candidate’s

knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to demonstrate positive impact on diverse

students’ learning and development. High quality clinical practice offers candidates experiences

in different settings and modalities, as well as with diverse P-12 students, schools, families, and

communities. Partners share responsibility to identify and address real problems of practice

candidates experience in their engagement with P-12 students.

Component R2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

R2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements for clinical

preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence:

● they establish and maintain partnerships

with schools and school districts, as well

as other appropriate organizations.

● P-12 schools and/or community partners

and EPPs have both benefited from the

partnership.

● all partners are active participants in the

on-going, collaborative process to

improve candidate preparation

(co-construction).

● How does the EPP document partnerships?

● How are the partnerships mutually

beneficial?

● How does the EPP ensure all partners are

involved - or have the opportunity to be

involved - in the development, maintenance,

and modification of the partnership? In other

words, how does the EPP ensure that

partnerships are co-constructed?

● How does the EPP engage P-12 partners in

an on-going collaborative process?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● The provider presents evidence that a collaborative process is in place with P-12 partners

that is reviewed periodically and involves activities such as:

○ Collaborative development, review, or revision of instruments and evaluations

○ Collaborative development, review, or revision of the structure and content of the

clinical activities

○ Mutual involvement in ongoing decision-making about partnership structure and

operations

○ Agreed upon provisions to ensure diversity of clinical settings

○ Creation of opportunities for candidates to work with diverse P-12 students who

have differing needs

● The EPP provides evidence that the P-12 schools and EPPs have both benefited from

the partnership.

Possible evidences can include:

○ Documentation of collaboration (meeting decisions, agenda topics)

○ MOUs

○ Advisory Boards

Connections

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Component R2.2 Clinical Educators

R2.2 Clinical Educators

Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, and support high-quality clinical educators, both provider-

and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates’ development and diverse

P-12 student learning and development.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence that the EPP

and partners (e.g., P-12, community,

agency)

● develop criteria for the co-selection of

clinical educators* that includes

demonstrating a positive impact on

candidate and/or P-12 student learning

and development.

● collaborate in the preparation of clinical

educators* that ensures they are

prepared for the role and responsibilities.

● collaborate on the evaluation of clinical

educators* as it relates to roles and

responsibilities.

● collaborate to develop, review, and

revise supports provided for clinical

educators*.

* Clinical educators refers to both provider-

and school-based clinical educators.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

● What features of partnerships including

clinical educator participation, selection, or

training have had positive effects on

candidate development?

● How does the EPP work with partners to

select clinical educators?

● How does the EPP prepare clinical

educators for the role and responsibilities in

working with candidates?

● How does the EPP evaluate clinical

educators and their impact on candidate

success?

● How does the EPP engage partners in the

data informed decision-making for clinical

educators?

● How does the EPP support clinical educators

as they engage in the role of working with

candidates?

● How does the EPP define equity, diversity,

and inclusion in relation to professional

responsibility?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents that clinical educators have the opportunity to receive feedback on

their experiences.

● Evidence documents that the EPP and its P-12 partners participate in the design and

delivery of training for clinical educators.

○ Examples of training might include:

■ Understanding the roles and responsibilities of clinical educators and of

the clinical curriculum

■ Use of evaluation instruments, evaluating professional dispositions of

candidates,

■ Setting specific goals/objectives of the clinical experiences, and

■ Providing feedback

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidence:

● Memorandum of Understanding(MOUs)

● Process documents and training materials for clinical educators

● Feedback tools for clinical educators

● Criteria for serving as a clinical educator

● Job descriptions and expectations for clinical educators

● Meeting decisions/active discussions for partnership

Connections

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Component R2.3 Clinical Experiences

R2.3 Clinical Experiences

The provider works with partners to design and implement clinical experiences, utilizing various

modalities, of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure candidates

demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on diverse P-12 students’

learning and development as presented in Standard R1.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence:

● they document the relationship between

the attributes and outcomes of clinical

experiences.

● they work with partners to design and

implement clinical experiences to ensure

candidates demonstrate their developing

effectiveness and positive impact on all

students’ learning and development.

These clinical experiences are designed

and implemented to include:

○ Depth: the intentional programmatic

design for the relationship between

clinical experiences, coursework, and

candidate assessments

○ Breadth: the opportunities candidates

are provided within clinical experience

to observe and practice within a wide

variety of settings

○ Diversity: the opportunities candidates

are provided to work with students of

varied learning needs and

backgrounds.

○ Coherence: the sequence of

experiences is deliberate, purposeful,

sequential, and is assessed using

performance-based protocols

○ Duration: the appropriate time for

candidates to demonstrate their

developing effectiveness and positive

impact

● What opportunities have candidates had to

prepare in diverse settings and to work with

students having different needs?

● What features of clinical experiences (e.g.,

depth, breadth, coherence, and duration) has

the EPP studied—through comparisons

across preparation programs, or more formal

investigations—to improve candidate

outcomes?

● What clinical experiences have enhanced

completer’s knowledge of diversity, equity,

and inclusion issues and their readiness to

use that knowledge in teaching situations?

● What applications of technology have

prepared completers for their responsibilities

on the job?

● How are clinical experiences effective in

preparing candidates for initial employment

in education in their field of specialization?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

guiding question with which it is aligned.

○ Modality: the opportunity to

demonstrate their effectiveness and

positive impact in a variety of delivery

methods

● they document clinical experience

goals/outcomes and operational design

along with evidence that clinical

experiences are being implemented as

described.

● their candidates engage in high-quality

clinical experiences including various

modalities (e.g., virtual instruction,

hybrid, face to face).

● candidates have experiences in diverse

settings with diverse P-12 students.

● of how candidate progression is

monitored and supported.

● of how clinical experiences provide

opportunities for candidates to apply

technology to enhance instruction in

P-12 learning for diverse students.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

key concept with which it is aligned.

Quality Evidence

Clinical experiences are guided, hands-on, practical applications of program curriculum with P-12

teachers and students. These include, but are not limited to, early field experiences,

observations, and culminating clinical practices such as student teaching or internship.

● Evidence documents that all candidates have active clinical experiences in diverse

settings and experiences with diverse P-12 students (which may be in the same or

different schools).

● Evidence is provided that clinical experiences are assessed using performance-based

criteria.

● Evidence documents a sequence of clinical experiences with specific goals that are

focused, purposeful, and varied.

● Attributes (depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration) are linked to student

outcomes and candidate performance.

● Evidence shows that candidates have purposefully assessed impact on student learning

using both formative and summative assessments in more than one clinical setting (which

may be in the same or different schools) and have:

○ Used comparison points or other means to interpret findings

○ Used the impact data to guide instructional decision-making

○ Modified instruction based on impact data, and have differentiated instruction

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Scope and sequence chart/graphic of clinical experiences

● Performance-based assessment data

● Tracking system of placements/experiences

● Portfolio of clinical experiences

● Proprietary Assessments to demonstrate a positive impact on student learning in clinical

experiences (e.g., edTPA rubrics, PPAT rubrics)

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R3.2 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), R3.3

(Competency at Completion)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Standard R3 Candidate Recruitment, Progression, and Support

Candidate Recruitment, Progression, and Support

The provider demonstrates the quality of candidates is a continuous and purposeful focus

from recruitment through completion. The provider demonstrates that development of

candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation and that the EPP provides support

services (such as advising, remediation, and mentoring) in all phases of the program so

candidates will be successful.

Component R3.1 Recruitment

R3.1 Recruitment

The provider presents goals and progress evidence for recruitment of high-quality candidates

from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations that align with their mission. The

provider demonstrates efforts to know and address local, state, regional, or national needs for

hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields. The goals and evidence should address progress

towards a candidate pool which reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence of:

○ goals towards admitting high-quality

initial program candidates from a

broad range of backgrounds and

diverse populations.

○ routinely monitoring the employment

landscape to identify shortage areas,

openings, forecasts, and related

information in the community, state,

regional, or national markets for which

it is preparing completers.

○ recording, monitoring, and using

recruitment results to plan and, as

appropriate, modify recruitment

strategies and goals.

○ descriptions of strategies and actions

in place to achieve the EPP’s goals

together with periodic evaluation of

the effectiveness of those strategies

● How does the EPP recruit an increasingly

diverse and strong pool of candidates?

● How does the EPP’s recruitment strategies

respond to and serve employer needs?

● How does the EPP determine the success

of recruitment efforts?

● How are recruitment efforts supported as

evidence-informed, meaningful, and

feasible given the context of the EPP?

● How do the recruitment strategies and

actions meet the needs of employers for

which the EPP prepares candidates?

● How do the recruitment strategies and

actions align with the mission of the EPP?

● How have the recruitment strategies and

actions and their implementation moved

the EPP toward the goal of greater

candidate diversity?

● In what ways does disaggregated data on

candidates (admitted and enrolled

candidates by a broad range of

backgrounds and diverse populations)

inform decisions that align with the EPP

missing and the goals of achieving a

diverse, highly qualified candidate pool?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents the EPP’s periodic examination of the employment landscape in

order to identify shortage areas, openings, forecasts, and related information in the

community, state, regionals, or national market for completers.

● Evidence documents baseline points and longitudinal data on current measures of

academic achievement.

● Evidence documents baseline points and longitudinal data on current measures of

diversity.

● Evidence documents measurable target outcomes and timeline for achievement

● Evidence documents that the EPP monitors annual progress toward admission goals

and fields where there are employment opportunities. Data are disaggregated to

describe gender, ethnicity, academic achievement, and/or candidate fit for high-need

areas or communities and trends are analyzed.

● Evidence documents that admissions data are disaggregated for enrolled candidates

by relevant demographics, branch campuses, and individual programs.

● Evidence documents strategies and actions specifically for the EPP and its programs.

While this can be part of an institution recruitment strategy, the evidence must

document recruitment for specific EPP programs and the EPP’s input opportunities to

the institutional goals.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Basic descriptive information such as baseline points and numerical goals.

● Results from annual monitoring of academic achievement, diversity, and employment

needs aligned with recruitment goals.

● Results of EPPs monitoring of progress towards recruitment goals

● Statewide shortage reports

● EPP’s interpretation of its progress and revising goals, as needed.

Connections

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Component R3.2 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression

R3.2 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression

The provider creates and monitors transition points from admission through completion that

indicate candidates’ developing content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical

skills, critical dispositions, professional responsibilities, and the ability to integrate technology

effectively in their practice. The provider identifies a transition point at any point in the

program when a cohort grade point average of 3.0 is achieved and monitors this data. The

provider ensures knowledge of and progression through transition points are transparent to

candidates. The provider plans and documents the need for candidate support, as identified

in disaggregated data by race and ethnicity and such other categories as may be relevant for

the EPP’s mission, so candidates meet milestones. The provider has a system for effectively

maintaining records of candidate complaints, including complaints made to CAEP, and

documents the resolution.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of criteria for transition points from

admission through completion

○ of monitoring progression from

admission through completion,

including attention to how candidates

develop:

○ content knowledge

○ pedagogical knowledge

○ pedagogical skills

○ critical dispositions

○ professional responsibilities

○ ability to integrate technology

effectively

○ transition points and related criteria are

shared with candidates.

○ of using disaggregated demographic

data to advise and support candidates

who may not progress.

○ a cohort grade point average of 3.0 is

achieved at some transition point in the

program

○ of a system for tracking and resolving

candidate complaints.

● How does the EPP monitor candidate

progress, including performance on

non-academic factors like critical

dispositions and professional

responsibilities?

● How does the EPP communicate with

candidates the progress monitoring

points and requirements for each point?

● How does the EPP collect and respond

to complaints/appeals?

● How is the evidence for monitoring

progression from admission through

completion identified in Standard R1

connected to identified transition

points?

● How does the EPP demonstrate the

transition point process is followed with

fidelity within the EPP (e.g., how does

the EPP ensure there are no loopholes

to work around the system)?

● Identify and describe the support

mechanisms for candidates not meeting

program expectations (e.g., advising,

remediation, or mentoring) that are

available and how do recommendations

occur

● How are support mechanisms (e.g.,

remediation and mentoring) culturally

responsive for candidates?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples

provided (e.g.,) are not intended to be

used as a checklist but rather a guide to

unpack the guiding question with which it

is aligned.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents performance reviews, remediation efforts, and/or provisions

illustrating that the EPP sets goals for candidate support and monitors progress

towards goals of providing sufficient support to candidates to facilitate successful

program completion.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic

items highlighted in R3.1 show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and

explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● Evidence that actions are taken when there are problems with the progression of

individual candidates.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria

for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of

EPP-Created Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Crosswalk/curriculum of key evidences from Standard R1 aligned with transition

points

● Assessments used at key points during the program including data and analyses

● Documentation of complaints/appeals (no identifying names) and demographics of

those submitting complaints/appeals.

● Description of support services available, frequency of use, and results in terms of

keeping candidates on the path to completion or counseling out of program

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.1 (Recruitment), R4.1

(Completer Impact)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Component R3.3 Competency at Completion

R3.3 Competency at Completion

The provider ensures candidates possess academic competency to teach effectively with

positive impacts on diverse P-12 student learning and development through application of

content knowledge, foundational pedagogical skills, and technology integration in the field(s)

where certification is sought. Multiple measures are provided and data are disaggregated

and analyzed based on race, ethnicity, and such other categories as may be relevant for the

EPP’s mission.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of using disaggregated data to verify

candidate quality at completion to

teach diverse P-12 students.

○ that candidates reach the expected

level of proficiency at completion in

the following areas:

○ content knowledge

○ pedagogical knowledge

○ pedagogical skills

○ critical dispositions

○ professional responsibilities

○ ability to integrate technology

effectively

○ illustrating proficiency at completion in

the areas identified.

○ documenting candidates’ effective

teaching, including positive impacts

on diverse P-12 student learning and

development.

● What evidence does the EPP use to

ensure by the end of the program a

candidate is ready to move into the

profession?

● How does the EPP use multiple sources

of evidence to triangulate that candidates

are prepared for certification at

completion?

● How does the EPP ensure candidates

are proficient in effective teaching and

have a positive impact on diverse P-12

student learning and development?

● How does the EPP ensure candidates’

critical dispositions reflect positive beliefs

about the learning potentials of all

students and a commitment to continued

growth in cultural awareness and

reflection on bias and equitable

practices?

● How does the EPP disaggregate the

completion data and what has been

learned from the analysis across

demographic groups?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Disaggregated data by preparation program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic

items highlighted in R3.1 show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and

explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence that actions are taken when there are problems with the progression of

individual candidates.

● Evidence is triangulated so there is more than one source that demonstrates

candidates are proficient in the areas identified.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria

for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of

EPP-Created Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Progression level threshold/criteria for success at completion

● EPP-created measures

● Proprietary measures (e.g., edTPA rubrics, PPAT rubrics, Praxis Content Exams)

● State Required Licensure measures

● Student-teaching evaluation instruments

● Dispositions/Non-Academic Factor Instruments

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R2.1 (Clinical Partnerships), R2.3 (Clinical Experiences), R3.1

(Recruitment)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Standard R4 Program Impact

Program Impact

The provider demonstrates the effectiveness of its completers’ instruction on P-12 student

learning and development, and completer and employer satisfaction with the relevance and

effectiveness of preparation.

Component R4.1 Completer Effectiveness

R4.1 Completer Effectiveness

The provider demonstrates that program completers:

● effectively contribute to P-12 student-learning growth

AND

● apply in P-12 classrooms the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions that the

preparation experiences were designed to achieve.

In addition, the provider includes a rationale for the data elements provided.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ completers have a positive impact on

P-12 student-learning growth with

impact data from a representative

sample of completers and programs

AND

○ completers apply the professional

knowledge, skills, and dispositions

corresponding with teaching

effectiveness.

● How does the EPP demonstrate completer

impact on P-12 student learning and

development?

● How is the EPP’s sample representative of

completers and measures used to show the

EPP completers have a positive impact on

P-12 student learning and development?

● How does the EPP measure completer

teaching effectiveness in the classroom?

● What is the rationale for the measures

chosen to measure impact?

● How does the EPP ensure a representative

sample inclusive of licensure areas or a

purposive sample to be enlarged over time?

● How does the EPP ensure completers are

effective in contributing to diverse P-12

student learning growth?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Disaggregated data by preparation program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic items

show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to

remedy them.

● Rationale/methodology for selection of impact measures used.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● Refer to Appendix D for more detail about quality evidence and possible evidences for

R4.1

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

● While the most recent three cycles of data must be provided as part of the accreditation

review, in the course of a seven year accreditation cycle data will be representative of all

programs.

Possible sources of evidence:

Contribute to P-12 student-learning growth

Apply professional knowledge, skills, and

dispositions in the P-12 classroom

● State-level data of student

performance (e.g., student growth

measures, value-add measures)

● Performance portfolios

● Case study

● State-level data of teacher

performance (e.g., teacher

evaluations)

● Focus groups/interviews

○ Completers

○ P-12 students

○ Observers

● Observations of completers

● Surveys

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R4.2 (Satisfaction of Employers), R4.3 (Satisfaction of Completers)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Component R4.2 Satisfaction of Employers

R4.2 Satisfaction of Employers

The provider demonstrates employers are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their

assigned responsibilities in working with diverse P-12 students and their families.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ that employers perceive completers’

preparation was sufficient for their job

responsibilities.

○ data from a representative sample of

employers.

○ employers are satisfied with

completers’ preparation to work with

diverse P-12 students and their

families.

● How does the EPP measure satisfaction

with preparation as viewed by employers?

● How does the EPP ensure a representative

sample inclusive of most licensure areas or

a purposive sample to be enlarged over

time?

● How does the EPP ensure

instruments/methods elicit responses

specific to the criteria in R1 (e.g., the learner

and learning, content, instructional practice,

professional responsibilities, technology)?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

guiding question with which it is aligned.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● Evidence should demonstrate a representative sample (in one cycle of data or over

multiple cycles of data).

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Employer satisfaction surveys

● Focus groups or interviews with detailed methodology

● Employer satisfaction case study

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R4.3 (Satisfaction of Completers)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Component R4.3 Satisfaction of Completers

R4.3 Satisfaction of Completers

The provider demonstrates program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the

responsibilities they encounter on the job, and their preparation was effective.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ completers perceive their preparation

was sufficient for their job

responsibilities.

○ data from a representative sample of

completers.

○ completers are satisfied with their

preparation to work with diverse P-12

students and their families.

● How does the EPP measure satisfaction with

preparation as viewed by completers?

● How does the EPP ensure

instruments/methods elicit responses

specific to the criteria in R1 (e.g., the learner

and learning, content, instructional practice,

professional responsibilities, technology)?

● How does the EPP ensure all of the

programs are included within the data

cycles?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

NOTE: The parenthetical examples provided

(e.g.,) are not intended to be used as a

checklist but rather a guide to unpack the

guiding question with which it is aligned.

Quality Evidence

● Disaggregated data by program and other demographic items show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include three cycles of data and subsequent analyses of the

assessment results.

● Evidence should demonstrate a representative sample (in one cycle of data or over

multiple cycles of data).

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Completer/Alumni Satisfaction surveys

● Focus groups or interviews with detailed methodology

● Employer satisfaction case study

● State proprietary measure (administered by state entities)

Connections

R1.1 (The Learner and Learning), R1.2 (Content), R1.3 (Instructional Practice), R1.4

(Professional Responsibility), R4.2 (Satisfaction of Employers)

Standard R5 encompasses process and structure components from R1-R4. Therefore, all

standards connect back to Standard R5.

Notes

Standard R5 Quality Assurance System and Continuous

Improvement

Quality Assurance System and Continuous Improvement

The provider maintains a quality assurance system that consists of valid data from multiple

measures and supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based. The

system is developed and maintained with input from internal and external stakeholders. The

provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program

elements, and highlight innovations.

Component R5.1 Quality Assurance System

R5.1 Quality Assurance System

The provider has developed, implemented, and modified, as needed, a functioning quality

assurance system that ensures a sustainable process to document operational effectiveness.

The provider documents how data enter the system, how data are reported and used in decision

making, and how the outcomes of those decisions inform programmatic improvement.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of a functioning Quality Assurance

System documenting operational

effectiveness.

○ a rationale for the selection of the

multiple measures

○ that Quality Assurance System data

is used in decision making

○ of a responsive Quality Assurance

System with the ability to provide

data relevant for aspects of the

EPP’s context.

○ of how outcomes of Quality

Assurance System data analysis are

used for program improvement.

● How does the EPP maintain a

functioning Quality Assurance System

capable of providing data output that

enables quality control and continuous

improvement?

● How are data describing the EPP’s

effectiveness (as provided for

standards R1-R4) collected, analyzed,

monitored, and reported?

● What are examples of questions the

system is called on to answer that

make use of the system capabilities to

combine data from various sources

and/or disaggregate data by different

categories?

● How is the system used by the EPP to

provide information for review and

decision making?

● Can the faculty, staff, candidates, and

stakeholders articulate their role and

engagement in the Quality Assurance

System?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Overview or flow chart demonstrating (at a high level) the entire Quality Assurance

system that includes roles and responsibilities of those responsible for the data collection,

monitoring, analysis, and reporting.

● Evidence provided that the EPP regularly reviews system operations and data.

● The provider demonstrates the Quality Assurance System has the capacity to collect,

analyze, monitor, and report data/evidence from Standards R1-R4.

● The provider’s Quality Assurance System supports the disaggregation of data by

licensure area/program, race/ethnicity, and other dimensions identified by the EPP.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Graphic representation of the Quality Assurance System

● Crosswalk of all measures included in the Quality Assurance System

● Verification of the Quality Assurance System through demonstration

Connections

R5.1 is an overarching structure and process component. Therefore, all components are

connected with R5.1.

Component R5.2 Data Quality

R5.2 Data Quality

The provider’s quality assurance system from R5.1 relies on relevant, verifiable, representative,

cumulative, and actionable measures to ensure interpretations of data are valid and consistent.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of a clear link between what is being

measured and what the EPP intends

to measure (relevant)

○ a measure or result can be confirmed

or substantiated; all assessments

should be valid and reliable

(verifiable)

○ data encompass candidates and

completers from programs under

review (representative)

○ measures of candidate or EPP

performance results across

successive administrations (3 cycles

of data). (cumulative)

○ of a clear link between the measure

and EPP action taken as a result of

this measure (actionable)

○ EPP created assessments meet the

CAEP Criteria for EPP Created

Assessments

○ EPP created surveys meet the CAEP

Criteria for EPP Created Surveys

● What strengths and weaknesses in the

Quality Assurance System do faculty

find when they use data and analyses

from the system?

● How are the data relevant, verifiable,

representative, cumulative, and

actionable?

● How are the scoring procedures

aligned with the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of Assessments?

● What procedures does the EPP take in

design, collection, analysis, and

interpretation of data to ensure its

validity?

● What procedures does the EPP take in

design, collection, analysis, and

interpretation of data to ensure its

reliability?

● Can findings be triangulated with

multiple data points so they can be

confirmed or found conflicting?

● How do the EPP created assessments

meet the CAEP Criteria for EPP

Created Assessments?

● How do the EPP-created surveys meet

the CAEP Criteria for EPP Created

Surveys?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Distinguish between EPP created and propriety assessments/instruments.

● Documentation of steps taken to establish instrument validity, reliability, and resultant

data.

● Description of modifications to instruments based on feedback, validity, and reliability

work.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Reliability and validity process documentation and data

● Sampling procedures

● At least 3 cycles of data for R1-R4

● Documentation of instrument revision with timeline

Connections

R5.2 is about data quality for instruments and data that is presented in each of the other

standards. Therefore, overall data quality in any standard is connected to R5.2.

Notes

Component R5.3 Stakeholder Involvement

R5.3 Stakeholder Involvement

The provider includes relevant internal (e.g., EPP administrators, faculty, staff, candidates) and

external (e.g., alumni, practitioners, school and community partners, employers) stakeholders in

program design, evaluation, and continuous improvement processes.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence of:

● internal and external stakeholder

involvement in program design,

evaluation, and continuous

improvement process.

● What EPP process is used to involve

stakeholders in data driven decision

making?

● How and when do external partners

participate in the EPP’s continuous

improvement process?

● How are clinical partners(external

stakeholders) included in the continuous

improvement process?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

program design?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

evaluation?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

continuous improvement?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence identifies examples of input from stakeholders and uses of that input.

● Evidence that stakeholder groups include members with a variety of roles and

responsibilities.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● MOUs/partnerships

● Advisory Board feedback/input

● Co-construction or assessments/surveys

● Documentation of meetings and decisions

Connections

R5.3 is about the stakeholder involvement in the accreditation process. Therefore, all standards

are connected with R5.3.

Notes

Component R5.4 Continuous Improvement

R5.4 Continuous Improvement

The provider regularly, systematically, and continuously assesses performance against its goals

and relevant standards, tracks results over time, documents modifications and/or innovations

and their effects on EPP outcomes.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ the EPP assesses performance in

relation to EPP goals and standards

○ Documenting performance results

over time

○ Documenting modifications and

tracking the effects over time.

○ that information from the Quality

Assurance System is the basis for a

continuous improvement function.

○ the EPP documents regular and

systematic data-driven changes

grounded in

■ data analyses and interpretations

from its quality assurance system

■ changes linked to its goals and

relevant standards

● program decisions are directly

supported by data and/or

contradictory data are explained.

● How does the EPP support continuous

improvement through procedures that

gather, input, analyze, interpret and

use information from the QAS

effectively?

● What actions has the EPP taken to

pilot specific program improvements

and study their effectiveness?

● What examples of changes in courses,

clinical experiences, or other candidate

experiences represent the

effectiveness of continuous

improvement efforts?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● The examples indicate that changes are clearly connected to evidence and provider

performance is systematically assessed against goals.

● Written documentation confirms that the EPP regularly and systematically: reviews,

analyzes and interprets QAS data, identifies patterns across programs, uses data for

continuous improvement and innovative modifications.

● Not all changes need to lead to improvement, as CAEP encourages data-driven

experimentation, but changes should trend toward improvement.

● The EPP examines the outcomes currently achieved and identifies gaps between current

results and established standards. Examines why these results occur.

● EPP documents the process of examining results and decisions made (e.g., keep,

modify, discontinue).

Possible sources of evidence:

● Decision grid (Question, Data, Stakeholder group, Decision)

● Condensed Meeting Minutes that highlight data review and decisions

● Outcomes of changes/modifications (what happened after changes were made)

● Goals crosswalk table (goals and where in the process)

Connections

R5.4 is the overarching theme of continuous improvement. Therefore, all standards are

connected with R5.4.

Notes

Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

Spring 2022 visits must still use the Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation in the

Consolidated Handbook. The revisions to the Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

included in this workbook will apply to Fall 2022 visits and beyond.

Standard RA.1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop an understanding of

the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and facilitates candidates’ reflection of their

personal biases to increase their understanding and practice of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

The provider is intentional in the development of their curriculum for candidates to demonstrate

their ability to effectively work with diverse P-12 students and their families.

Component RA1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional

Dispositions

RA1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Candidates for advanced preparation demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply

knowledge and skills appropriate to their professional field of specialization so that learning and

development opportunities for all P-12 are enhanced, through:

● Applications of data literacy;

● Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods

research methodologies;

● Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive, diverse, equitable, and

inclusive school environments;

● Leading and/or participating in collaborative activities with others such as peers,

colleagues, teachers, administrators, community organizations, and parents;

● Supporting appropriate applications of technology for their field of specialization; and

● Application of professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and

professional standards appropriate to their field of specialization.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence that

most advanced program candidates:

○ Can identify the different types of data

that exist, evaluate the

appropriateness and sufficiency of the

data, analyze and synthesize data into

● How does each specialty program address

each of the six skills within their program?

● Of the six addressed, how does each

specialty program assess the three most

important for their specialized field?

meaningful forms that guide decisions

making.

○ Identify problems and employ one or

more research methodologies to

develop solutions or understandings.

○ Use research and data to improve

teaching and learning.

○ Demonstrate application of

professional standards of practice,

relevant laws, and policies and codes

of ethics.

● How does the EPP know candidates have

developed proficiencies expected of

professionals in their specialized field?

● How does the EPP know candidates are

able to apply their skills effectively to

enhance learning and development

opportunities for all P-12 students?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Most advanced program candidates perform adequately or better on at least three of the

six generic knowledge and skill abilities that are most relevant for the professional

specialty field.

● Evidence is not just coverage of skills in course materials, but evidence of candidate

performance on generic advanced level skill areas.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidence:

○ Course assignments or tasks

○ State Licensure Measures

○ SPA Status and Use of Results

○ Professional Portfolio/Tasks in Field of Specialization

○ Legal compliance assessments (e.g., reporting requirements)

○ Problem-based projects/group projects

○ Synthesis and interpretation of research relevant to a specialty specific problem

○ Action research project, thesis, or dissertation

Connections

RA3.3 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), RA3.4 (Competency at Completion),

RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Component RA1.2 Provider Responsibilities

RA1.2 Provider Responsibilities

Providers ensure that program completers have opportunities to learn and apply specialized

content and discipline knowledge contained in approved state and/or national discipline-specific

standards. These specialized standards include, but are not limited to, Specialized Professional

Association (SPA) standards, individual state standards, standards of the National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards, and standards of other accrediting bodies [e.g., Council for

Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)]. Evidence of

candidate content knowledge appropriate for the professional specialty should be documented.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence of

candidate understanding and

application of:

○ Central concepts, tools of inquiry,

and structures of discipline specific

to content

○ Accessible and meaningful learning

experiences to ensure mastery of

content

○ Content specific pedagogy (e.g.,

connecting concepts, using differing

perspectives, engaging learners in

critical thinking, creativity and

collaborative problem solving;

encouraging learner exploration,

discovery, and expression across

content areas)

○ Diversity and equity in content

knowledge (e.g., intentional design

and implementation of inclusive

curriculum, awareness that content

knowledge is culturally situated,

teaching with multiple perspectives,

promoting critical analysis, awareness

of and responsiveness to bias,

inclusion of authentic and global

issues)

● How does the EPP know candidates know

the specialized content of their field?

● How does the EPP know candidates are

able to apply their specialized knowledge

effectively in education settings?

● What evidence does the EPP have that

candidates in advanced preparation are

able to work effectively with diverse

students and colleagues to create effective

learning environments for diverse P-12

students?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Demonstrate a majority of candidates enrolled in P-12 licensure, certificate, or

endorsement programs understand critical concepts and principles for their specialized

field of study in the following ways:

○ High level of proficiency, as might be represented by completion of SPA National

Recognition or state approval of meeting state standards.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys

Possible sources of evidence:

○ Outcome assessments submitted as part of the SPA National Recognition or state

approval process

○ EPP created measures

○ Proprietary measures (e.g., edTPA, PPAT, Praxis Content Exams)

○ State Required Licensure measures

Connections

RA3.3 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), RA3.4 (Competency at Completion),

RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Standard RA.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Clinical Partnerships and Practice

The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to

preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions

appropriate for their professional specialty field.

Component RA2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

RA2.1 Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements for clinical

preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence:

● they establish and maintain partnerships

with schools and school districts, as well

as other appropriate organizations.

● P-12 schools and/or community partners

and EPPs have both benefited from the

partnership.

● both partners are active participants in

the on-going, collaborative process to

improve candidate preparation

(co-construction).

● How does the EPP document partnerships?

● How are partnerships mutually beneficial?

● How does the EPP ensure all partners are

involved - or have the opportunity to be

involved - in the development, maintenance,

and modification of the partnership? In other

words, how does the EPP ensure

partnerships are co-constructed?

● How does the EPP engage P-12 partners in

an on-going collaborative process?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● The provider presents evidence that a collaborative process is in place with P-12 partners

that is reviewed periodically and involves activities such as:

○ Collaborative development, review, or revision of instruments and evaluations

○ Collaborative development, review, or revision of the structure and content of the

clinical activities

○ Mutual involvement in ongoing decision-making about partnership structure and

operations

○ Agreed upon provisions to ensure diversity of clinical settings

○ Creation of opportunities for candidates to work with diverse P-12 students who have

differing needs

● The EPP provides evidence that the P-12 schools and EPPs have both benefited from

the partnership.

Possible evidences can include:

○ Documentation of collaboration (meeting decisions, agenda topics)

○ MOUs

○ Advisory Boards

Connections

RA5.3 (Stakeholder Involvement), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Notes

Component RA2.2 Clinical Experiences

RA2.2 Clinical Experiences

The provider works with partners to design varied and developmental clinical experiences that

allow opportunities for candidates to practice applications of content knowledge and skills that

the courses and other experiences of the advanced preparation emphasize. The opportunities

lead to appropriate culminating experiences in which candidates demonstrate their proficiencies,

through problem-based tasks or research (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, action)

that are characteristic of their professional specialization as detailed in component A1.1.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ they design varied and developmental

clinical experiences

○ candidates have opportunities to

practice applications of content

knowledge and skills their preparation

emphasizes.

○ candidates engage in a culminating

experience to demonstrate their

proficiencies identified in RA1.1.

○ candidates engage in problem-based

tasks or research that are

characteristic of their professional

specialization.

● What opportunities have candidates had to

prepare in diverse settings and to work in

their specialized field of study?

● What features of clinical experiences allow

candidates to demonstrate their proficiencies

through problem-based tasks or research?

● How has the EPP studied clinical experience

data to improve candidate outcomes?

● What clinical experiences have enhanced

completer’s understanding of diversity and

equity issues and their readiness to use that

understanding in employment situations?

● How are clinical experiences effective in

preparing candidates for the chosen

proficiencies in RA1.1?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence describes the role of clinical practice in the advanced-level program, including

campus-based and field-based activities that involve practical applications of knowledge and

skills appropriate for the advanced-level specialty field.

● Evidence shows that the EPP and its partners ensure advanced-level clinical experiences

are planned, purposeful, and sequential;

● Evidence shows that clinical experiences are designed to help candidates grow and develop

in the practice of the knowledge and skills that make up the advanced-level preparation

program; and are assessed with performance-based protocols.

● Evidence shows that candidates engage in a culminating experience and are able to

demonstrate their proficiencies through problem-based tasks or research that are

characteristic of their professional specialization.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program and race/ethnicity show no or few disparities OR

disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Artifacts or completed assignments reflective of on-the-job tasks for the specialized field

● Candidate evaluation of their preparatory activities for clinical practice

● Preparation of a school budget or school improvement plan

● A proposal for a district’s response to criticism of some aspect of school functions (e.g.,

complaints of discriminatory responses given by principals to parent complaints)

● Demonstrate an understanding of a student’s IEP and to suggest appropriate child

activities responsive to the IEP

Connections

RA1.1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions), RA1.2 (Provider

Responsibilities), RA3.3 (Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression), RA3.4

(Competency at Completion), RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.3 (Stakeholder Input), RA5.4

(Continuous Improvement)

Standard RA.3 Candidate Quality and Selectivity

Candidate Quality and Selectivity

The provider demonstrates that the quality of advanced program candidates is an ongoing and

intentional focus so that completers are prepared to perform effectively and can be

recommended for certification where applicable.

Component RA3.1 Recruitment

RA3.1 Recruitment

The provider presents goals and progress evidence for recruitment of high-quality candidates

from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations that align with their mission. The

provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local

needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields. The goals and evidence should address

progress towards a candidate pool which reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence of:

○ goals towards admitting high-quality

advanced program candidates from a

broad range of backgrounds and

diverse populations.

○ routinely monitoring the employment

landscape to identify shortage areas,

openings, forecasts, and related

information in the community, state,

regional, or national markets for

which it is preparing completers.

○ recording, monitoring, and using

recruitment results to plan and, as

appropriate, modify recruitment

strategies and goals.

○ descriptions of strategies and actions

in place to achieve the EPP’s goals

together with periodic evaluation of

the effectiveness of those strategies.

○ recruitment results disaggregated by

demographic groups, particularly

race and ethnicity, and analyzes its

progress toward greater diversity in

the pool of candidates.

● How does the EPP recruit an increasingly

diverse and strong pool of candidates?

● How do recruitment strategies respond to

and serve employer needs?

● How does the EPP determine the success of

recruitment efforts?

● How are recruitment efforts supported as

evidence-informed, meaningful, and feasible

given the context of the EPP?

● How do the recruitment strategies and

actions meet the needs of employers for

which the EPP prepares candidates?

● How do the recruitment strategies and

actions align with the mission of the EPP?

● How have recruitment strategies and actions

and their implementation moved the EPP

toward the goal of greater candidate

diversity?

● Evidence is disaggregated on applicants,

those admitted, and enrolled candidates by

a broad range of backgrounds and diverse

populations that align with the EPP

mission.

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents the EPP’s periodic examination of the employment landscape in

order to identify shortage areas, openings, forecasts, and related information in the

community, state, regionals, or national market for completers.

● Evidence documents baseline points and longitudinal data on current measures of

academic achievement and diversity.

● Evidence documents measurable target outcomes and timeline for achievement

● Evidence documents that the EPP monitors annual progress toward admission goals and

fields where there are employment opportunities. Data are disaggregated to describe

gender, ethnicity, academic achievement, and/or candidate fit for high-need areas or

communities and trends are analyzed.

● Evidence documents that admissions data are disaggregated for enrolled candidates by

relevant demographics, branch campuses, and individual programs.

● Evidence documents strategies and actions specifically for the EPP and its programs.

While this can be part of an institution recruitment strategy, the evidence must document

recruitment for specific EPP programs and the EPP’s input opportunities to the

institutional goals.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Basic descriptive information such as baseline points and numerical goals

● Results from annual monitoring of characteristics related to academic achievement,

diversity, and employment needs

● Results of EPPs monitoring of progress towards goals

● EPP’s interpretation of its progress and revising goals, as needed

Connections

RA5.3 (Stakeholder involvement), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Component RA3.2 Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement and

Ability to Complete Preparation Successfully

RA3.2 Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement and Ability to Complete

Preparation Successfully

The provider sets admissions requirements for academic achievement, including CAEP

minimum criteria (group average college GPA of 3.0 or group average performance in top 50th

percent of those assessed on nationally normed assessment), the state’s minimum criteria, or

graduate school minimum criteria, whichever is highest, and gathers data to monitor candidates

from admission to completion.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence of:

○ descriptions of its criteria used to

ensure that candidates are likely to

complete preparation successfully,

together with its analysis of the

efficacy of the criteria it uses.

● How does the EPP define cohorts?

● If the EPP uses GPA to demonstrate

academic achievement, when is GPA

measured?

● If the EPP uses nationally normed

assessment data to demonstrate academic

achievement, are cohort’s group average in

the top 50th percent of those assessed?

● Does the EPP have additional admission

requirements for academic achievement? If

so, please describe them and explain how

the EPP uses that data in admission

decisions?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence disaggregates results on the CAEP minima (GPA OR test performance) by

admission year.

● Evidence presents results separately for mathematics, reading, and writing if providing

test scores.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic items

highlighted in RA3.1 show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and

explained, including steps to remedy them.

Possible sources of evidence:

● College GPA

● Nationally normed assessment scores

● Program admission requirements

Connections

RA3.1 (Recruitment), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Notes

Component RA3.3 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression

RA3.3 Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression

The provider creates criteria for program progression and uses disaggregated data to monitor

candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion. The provider ensures that

knowledge of and progression through transition points are transparent to candidates. The

provider plans and documents the need for candidate support, as identified in disaggregated

data by race and ethnicity and such other categories as may be relevant for the EPP’s mission,

so candidates meet milestones. The provider has a system for effectively maintaining records of

candidate complaints, including complaints made to CAEP, and documents the resolution.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of support for candidates who are at

risk with the intent to help ensure their

successful program completion.

○ of criteria for program progression by

way of transition points from

admission through completion

○ for monitoring progression from

admission through completion,

including attention to how candidates

develop in their specialized field.

○ transition points and related criteria

are shared with candidates.

○ of using disaggregated demographic

data to advise and support candidates

who may not progress.

○ of a system for tracking and resolving

candidate complaints/appeals.

● How does the EPP monitor candidate

progress through transitions points in the

program?

● How does the EPP communicate with

candidates the criteria required for each

transition point?

● How does the EPP collect and respond to

complaints/appeals?

● How does the EPP demonstrate the

transition point process is followed with

fidelity within the EPP (e.g., how does the

EPP ensure there are no loopholes to work

around the system)?

● Identify and describe the support

mechanisms for candidates not meeting

program expectations (e.g., advising,

remediation, or mentoring) that are

available and how do recommendations

occur?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence documents performance reviews, remediation efforts, and/or provisions

illustrating that the EPP sets goals for candidate support and monitors progress towards

goals of providing sufficient support to candidates to facilitate successful program

completion.

● Disaggregated data by preparation program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic items

highlighted in RA3.1 show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and

explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of any transition point

assessment and results.

● Evidence that actions are taken when there are problems with the progression of

individual candidates.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Crosswalk/curriculum with transition points that includes where six skills from RA1.1 are

addressed and assessed and content expectations from RA1.2

● Assessments used at key points during the program including data and analyses

● Documentation of complaints/appeals (no identifying names) and demographics of those

submitting complaints/appeals.

Connections

RA1.1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions), RA1.2 (Provider

Responsibilities), RA2.2 (Clinical Experiences), RA3.1 (Recruitment), RA5.1 (Quality Assurance

System), RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Component RA3.4 Competency at Completion

RA3.4 Competency at Completion

The provider ensures candidates possess academic competency to help facilitate learning with

positive impacts on diverse P-12 student learning and development through application of

content knowledge, data literacy and research-driven decision making, effective use of

collaborative skills,and application of technology in the field(s) where certification is sought.

Multiple measures are provided and data are disaggregated and analyzed based on race,

ethnicity, and such other categories as may be relevant for the EPP’s mission.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of using disaggregated data to verify

candidate quality at completion for

their field of specialization.

○ that candidates reach a high standard

in the following areas:

○ Content knowledge

○ Data literacy

○ Research-driven decision

making

○ Effective Use of collaborative

skills

○ Applications of technology

○ Applications of dispositions,

laws, codes of ethics and

professional standards

○ illustrating proficiency at completion in

the areas identified.

● How does the EPP support candidates who

may not meet the expected level of

proficiency in each of the areas by

completion?

● How does the EPP disaggregate the

completion data and what has been learned

from analysis across demographic groups?

● How does the EPP use multiple sources of

evidence to triangulate that candidates are

prepared for certification at completion?

● What evidence does the EPP use to ensure

that by the end of the program a candidate is

ready to move into the profession at the

advanced level?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Disaggregated data by program, race/ethnicity, and other demographic items highlighted

in RA3.1 show no or few disparities OR disparities are identified and explained, including

steps to remedy them.

● Evidence that actions are taken when there are problems with the progression of

individual candidates.

● Evidence is triangulated so that there is more than one source that demonstrates

candidates are proficient in the areas identified.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● EPP created measures

● Proprietary measures

● State Required Licensure measures

● Dispositions/Non-Academic Factor Instruments

Connections

RA1.1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions), RA1.2 (Provider

Responsibilities), RA2.2 (Clinical Experiences), RA3.1 (Recruitment), RA5.1 (Quality Assurance

System), RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Notes

Standard RA.4 Satisfaction with Preparation

Satisfaction with Preparation

The provider documents the satisfaction of its completers and their employers with the

relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Component RA4.1 Satisfaction of Employers

RA4.1 Satisfaction of Employers

The provider demonstrates that employers are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their

assigned responsibilities.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ that employers perceive completers’

preparation was sufficient for their job

responsibilities.

○ of data from a representative sample

of employers.

○ employers are satisfied with

completers’ preparation to work with

diverse P-12 students and their

families.

● How does the EPP measure satisfaction with

preparation as viewed by employers?

● How does the EPP ensure a representative

sample inclusive of most licensure areas or a

purposive sample to be enlarged over time?

● How does the EPP ensure

instruments/methods elicit responses

specific to the criteria in R1 (e.g., the learner

and learning, content, instructional practice,

professional responsibilities, technology)?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● Evidence should demonstrate a representative sample (in one cycle of data or over

multiple cycles of data).

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Employer satisfaction surveys

● Focus groups or interviews with detailed methodology

● Employer satisfaction case study

Connections

RA1.1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions), RA1.2 (Provider

Responsibilities), RA4.2 (Satisfaction of Completers), RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.3 (Stakeholder

Input), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Notes

Component RA4.2 Satisfaction of Completers

RA4.2 Satisfaction of Completers

The provider demonstrates that program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the

responsibilities they confront on the job, and their preparation was effective.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ completers perceive their preparation

was sufficient for their job

responsibilities.

○ of data from a representative sample

of completers.

○ completers are satisfied with their

preparation to work with diverse P-12

students and their families.

● How does the EPP measure satisfaction with

preparation as viewed by completers?

● How does the EPP ensure

instruments/methods elicit responses

specific to the criteria in R1 (e.g., the learner

and learning, content, instructional practice,

professional responsibilities, technology)?

● How does the EPP ensure all programs are

included within data cycles?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s case,

what they have learned from the evidence,

and what conclusions and interpretations

have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Disaggregated data by program and other demographic items show no or few disparities

OR disparities are identified and explained, including steps to remedy them.

● Evidence should include data and subsequent analyses of the assessment results.

● Evidence should demonstrate a representative sample (in one cycle of data or over

multiple cycles of data).

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Completer/Alumni Satisfaction surveys

● Focus groups or interviews with detailed methodology

● Employer satisfaction case study

● State proprietary measure (administered by state entities)

Connections

RA1.1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions), RA1.2 (Provider

Responsibilities), RA4.1 (Satisfaction of Employers), RA5.2 (Data Quality), RA5.3 (Stakeholder

Input), RA5.4 (Continuous Improvement)

Notes

Standard RA5 Quality Assurance System and Continuous

Improvement

Quality Assurance System and Continuous Improvement

The provider maintains a quality assurance system that consists of valid data from multiple

measures and supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based. The

system is developed and maintained with input from internal and external stakeholders. The

provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program

elements, and highlight innovations.

Component RA5.1 Quality Assurance System

RA5.1 Quality Assurance System

The provider has developed, implemented, and modified, as needed, a functioning quality

assurance system that ensures a sustainable process to document operational effectiveness.

This system documents how data enter the system, how data are reported and used in decision

making, and how the outcomes of those decisions inform programmatic improvement.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of a functioning Quality Assurance

System documenting operational

effectiveness.

○ a rationale for the selection of the

multiple measures

○ that Quality Assurance System data

is used in decision making

○ of a responsive Quality Assurance

System with the ability to provide

data relevant for aspects of the

EPP’s context.

○ of how outcomes of Quality

Assurance System data analysis are

used for program improvement.

● How does the EPP maintain a

functioning Quality Assurance System

capable of providing data output that

enables quality control and continuous

improvement?

● How are data describing the EPP’s

effectiveness (as provided for

standards RA1-RA4) collected,

analyzed, monitored, and reported?

● What are examples of questions the

system is called on to answer that

make use of the system capabilities to

combine data from various sources

and/or disaggregate data by different

categories?

● How is the system used by the EPP to

provide information for review and

decision making?

● Can the faculty, staff, candidates, and

stakeholders articulate their role and

engagement in the Quality Assurance

System?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Overview or flow chart demonstrating (at a high level) the entire Quality Assurance

system that includes roles and responsibilities of those responsible for the data collection,

monitoring, analysis, and reporting.

● Evidence provided that the EPP regularly reviews system operations and data.

● The provider demonstrates the Quality Assurance System has the capacity to collect,

analyze, monitor, and report data/evidence on ALL CAEP Standards.

● The provider’s Quality Assurance System supports the disaggregation of data by

licensure area/program, race/ethnicity, and other dimensions identified by the EPP.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Graphic representation of the Quality Assurance System

● Crosswalk of all measures included in the Quality Assurance System

● Verification of the Quality Assurance System through demonstration

● Potential program or EPP action minutes documenting the creation or implementation of

the system

● Assessment Reports

● Stakeholder feedback on system and data

Connections

RA5.1 is an overarching structure and process component. Therefore, all components are

indirectly connected with RA5.1.

Component RA5.2 Data Quality

RA5.2 Data Quality

This provider’s quality assurance system from RA5.1 relies on relevant, verifiable,

representative, cumulative, and actionable measures to ensure interpretations of data are valid

and consistent.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ of a clear link between what is being

measured and what the EPP intends

to measure (relevant)

○ a measure or result can be confirmed

or substantiated; all assessments

should be valid and reliable

(verifiable)

○ data encompass candidates and

completers from programs under

review (representative)

○ measures of candidate or EPP

performance results across

successive administrations (3 cycles

of data). (cumulative)

○ of a clear link between the measure

and EPP action taken as a result of

this measure (actionable)

○ EPP created assessments meet the

CAEP Criteria for EPP Created

Assessments

● What strengths and weaknesses in the

Quality Assurance System do faculty

find when they use data and analyses

from the system?

● How are data relevant, verifiable,

representative, cumulative, and

actionable?

● How does the EPP’s scoring

procedures align with the CAEP

Criteria for Evaluation of Assessments?

● What procedures does the EPP take in

design, collection, analysis, and

interpretation of data to ensure its

validity?

● What procedures does the EPP take in

design, collection, analysis, and

interpretation of data to ensure its

reliability?

● Can findings be triangulated with

multiple data points so they can be

confirmed or found conflicting?

● How do EPP created assessments

meet the CAEP Criteria for EPP

Created Assessments?

● How do EPP created surveys meet the

CAEP Criteria for EPP Created

Surveys?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Distinguish between EPP created and propriety assessments/instruments.

● Documentation of steps taken to establish instrument validity, reliability, and resultant

data.

● Description of modifications to instruments based on feedback, validity, and reliability

work.

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● Reliability and validity process documentation and data

● Sampling procedures

● At least 3 cycles of data for RA1-RA4

● Documentation of instrument revision with timeline

Connections

RA5.2 is about the data quality for instruments and data that is presented in each of the other

standards. Therefore, overall issues with data quality in any standard are connected to RA5.2.

Notes

Component RA5.3 Stakeholder Involvement

RA5.3 Stakeholder Involvement

The provider includes relevant internal (e.g., EPP administrators, faculty, staff, candidates) and

external (e.g., alumni, practitioners, school and community partners, employers) stakeholders in

the program design, evaluation, and continuous improvement processes.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

The provider presents evidence of:

● internal and external stakeholder

involvement in program design,

evaluation, and continuous

improvement process.

● What EPP process is used to involve

stakeholders in data driven decision

making?

● How and when do external partners

participate in the EPP’s continuous

improvement process?

● How are clinical partners(external

stakeholders) included in the continuous

improvement process?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

program design?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

evaluation?

● In what ways are stakeholders involved in

continuous improvement?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● Evidence identifies examples of input from stakeholders and uses of that input

● Evidence that stakeholder groups include members with a variety of roles and

responsibilities

● EPP-created assessments and surveys must meet the criteria on the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments or CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Surveys.

Possible sources of evidence:

● MOUs/partnerships

● Advisory Board feedback/input

● Co-construction or assessments/surveys

● Documentation of meetings and decisions

Connections

RA5.3 is about the stakeholder involvement in the accreditation process. Therefore, all

standards/components are indirectly connected with RA5.3.

Notes

Component RA5.4 Continuous Improvement

RA5.4 Continuous Improvement

The provider regularly, systematically, and continuously assesses performance against its goals

and relevant standards, tracks results over time, documents modifications and/or innovations

and their effects on EPP outcomes.

Key Concepts

Guiding Questions

● The provider presents evidence:

○ the EPP assesses performance in

relation to EPP goals and standards

○ Documenting performance results

over time

○ Documenting modifications and

tracking the effects over time.

○ that information from the Quality

Assurance System is the basis for a

continuous improvement function.

○ the EPP documents regular and

systematic data-driven changes

grounded in

■ data analyses and interpretations

from its quality assurance system

■ changes linked to its goals and

relevant standards

● program decisions are directly

supported by data and/or

contradictory data are explained.

● How does the EPP support continuous

improvement through EPP procedures

that gather, input, analyze, interpret

and use information from the QAS

effectively?

● What actions has the EPP taken to

pilot specific program improvements

and study their effectiveness?

● What examples of changes in courses,

clinical experiences, or other candidate

experiences represent the

effectiveness of continuous

improvement efforts?

● Describe the evidence that most

compellingly demonstrates the EPP’s

case, what they have learned from the

evidence, and what conclusions and

interpretations have been made.

Quality Evidence

● The examples indicate that changes are clearly connected to evidence and provider

performance is systematically assessed against goals.

● Written documentation confirms that the EPP regularly and systematically: reviews,

analyzes and interprets QAS data, identifies patterns across programs, uses data for

continuous improvement and innovative modifications.

● Not all changes need to lead to improvement, as CAEP encourages data-driven

experimentation, but changes should trend toward improvement.

● The EPP examines the outcomes currently achieved and identifies gaps between current

results and established standards. Examines why these results occur.

● EPP documents the process of examining results and decisions made (e.g., keep,

modify, discontinue).

Possible sources of evidence:

● Decision grid (Question, Data, Stakeholder group, Decision)

● Condensed Meeting Minutes that highlight data review and decisions

● Outcomes of changes/modifications (what happened after changes were made)

● Goals crosswalk table (goals and where in the process)

Connections

RA5.4 is the overarching theme of continuous improvement. Therefore, all

Standards/components are indirectly connected with RA5.4.

Notes

Standard 6: Fiscal and Administrative Capacity

For EPPs whose institution is accredited by an institutional accreditor recognized by the U.S.

Secretary of Education (e.g., SACS-COC, HLC), such accreditation will be considered sufficient

evidence of compliance with Standard 6. The required evidence for this standard is listed below

in the orange box. No narrative is required for this standard if the EPP is accredited by an

accreditor recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Standard 6: Fiscal and Administrative Capacity

The EPP has the fiscal and administrative capacity, faculty, infrastructure (facilities,

equipment, and supplies) and other resources as appropriate to the scale of its operations

and as necessary for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and

institutional standards. For EPPs whose institution is accredited by an institutional

accreditor recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education (e.g., SACS-COC, HLC), such

accreditation will be considered sufficient evidence of compliance with Standard.6. If

an EPP’s institution is not accredited by an accreditor recognized by the U.S. Secretary of

Education, the EPP must address each component of ST 6 in narrative supported by

evidence.

R6.1 Fiscal Resources The EPP has the fiscal capacity as appropriate to the scale of its

operations. The budget for curriculum, instruction, faculty, clinical work, scholarship, etc.,

supports high-quality work within the EPP and its school partners for the preparation of

professional educators.

R6.2 Administrative Capacity The EPP has administrative capacity as appropriate to the

scale of its operations, including leadership and authority to plan, deliver, and operate

coherent programs of study so that their candidates are prepared to meet all standards.

Academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading policies, and advertising are current,

accurate, and transparent.

R6.3 Faculty Resources The EPP has professional education faculty that have earned

doctorates or equivalent P-12 teaching experience that qualifies them for their assignments.

The EPP provides adequate resources and opportunities for professional development of

faculty, including training in the use of technology.

R6.4 Infrastructure The EPP has adequate campus and school facilities, equipment, and

supplies to support candidates in meeting standards. The infrastructure supports faculty and

candidate use of information technology in instruction.

Required Evidences

If the EPP IS considered accredited by an institutional accreditor recognized by the U.S.

Secretary of Education:

● Institution’s regional or national accreditation letter

● Program Characteristics Table

● EPP Characteristics Table

● Qualification Table for EPP-Based Clinical Educators

● Capacity Table

● Off Campus, Satellite, Branch Table

If the EPP’s institution IS NOT accredited by a recognized accreditor :

● Narrative addressing each component

● Program Characteristics Table

● EPP Characteristics Table

● Qualification Table for EPP-Based Clinical Educators

● Capacity Table

● Off Campus, Satellite, Branch Table

Standard 7: Record of Compliance with Title IV of

the Higher Education Act

Freestanding EPPs may be able to use CAEP accreditation to access Title IV funds or other

federal funds. If it is their intent to do so, the EPP is required to meet Standard 7.

**Only For Freestanding PPs seeking to have CAEP serve as its federal Title IV

gatekeeper**

Standard 7: Record of Compliance with Title IV of the Higher Education Act

Freestanding EPPs relying on CAEP accreditation to access Title IV of the Higher

Education Act or other federal funds must demonstrate 100% compliance with their

responsibilities under Title IV of the Act, including but not limited to on the basis of

student loan default rate data provided by the Secretary, financial and compliance audits,

and program reviews conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. Freestanding

EPPs will need to provide narrative and evidence for all components of ST 7.

Notes

Appendices

Appendix A: CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Assessments & Surveys

CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created Assessments

1. Administration and Purpose

Sufficiency Criteria

● The time/point at which the assessment is administered during the preparation program is explicit.

● The purpose of the assessment and its use in candidate monitoring or decisions on progression are

specified and appropriate.

● Instructions provided to candidates about what they are expected to do are informative and

unambiguous.

● The basis for judgment is made explicit for candidates.

● Evaluation categories or assessment tasks are aligned with CAEP, InTASC, national/professional, and

state standards

2. Content of Assessment

Sufficiency Criteria

● Indicators assess explicitly identified aspects of CAEP and InTASC Standards, in addition to national,

professional, or state standards.

● Indicators reflect the degree of difficulty or level of effort described in the standards.

● Indicators unambiguously describe the proficiencies to be evaluated.

● When the standards being informed address higher level functioning, the indicators require higher

levels of intellectual behavior (e.g., create, evaluate, analyze, and apply). For example, when a

standard specifies that candidates’ students “demonstrate” problem solving, then the indicator is

specific to candidates’ application of knowledge to solve problems.

● Most indicators require observers to judge consequential attributes of candidate proficiencies in the

standards.

3. Scoring

Sufficiency Criteria

● The basis for judging candidate performance is well defined.

● Each proficiency level descriptor (PLD) is qualitatively defined by specific criteria aligned with

indicators.

● PLDs represent a developmental sequence from level to level (providing raters with explicit

guidelines to evaluate candidate performance and giving candidates explicit feedback on their

performance).

● Feedback provided to candidates is actionable—it is directly related to the preparation program and

can be used for program improvement as well as for feedback to the candidate.

● Proficiency level attributes are defined in actionable, performance-based, or observable behavior

terms. [NOTE: If a less actionable term is used such as “engaged,” criteria are provided to define the

use of the term in the context of the category or indicator.]

4. Data Reliability

Sufficiency Criteria

● A description or plan is provided that details the type of reliability that is being investigated or has

been established (e.g., inter-rater, internal consistency, consensus building activities with

documentation) and the steps the EPP took to ensure the reliability of the data from the assessment.

● Training of scorers and checking on inter-rater agreement and reliability are documented.

● The described steps meet accepted research standards for establishing reliability.

5. Data Validity

Sufficiency Criteria

● A description or plan is provided that details steps the EPP has taken or is taking to ensure the

validity of the assessment and its use.

● The plan details the types of validity that are under investigation or have been established (e.g.,

construct, content, concurrent, predictive) and how they were established.

● If the assessment is new or revised, a pilot was conducted.

● The EPP details its current process or plans for analyzing and interpreting results from the

assessment.

● The described steps meet accepted research standards for establishing the validity of data from an

assessment.

Notes

CAEP Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created Surveys

1. Administration and Purpose

Sufficiency Criteria

● The point or points when the survey is administered during the preparation program are explicit.

● The purpose of the survey and its use are specified and appropriate.

● Instructions provided to survey respondents about what they are expected to do are informative and

unambiguous.

2. Survey Content

Sufficiency Criteria

● Questions or topics are explicitly aligned with aspects of the EPP’s mission as well as CAEP, InTASC,

national, professional, or state standards as appropriate.

● Individual items have a single subject; language is unambiguous.

● Leading questions are avoided.

● Items are stated in terms of behaviors or practices instead of opinions, whenever possible.

● Surveys of dispositions make clear to candidates how the survey is related to effective teaching.

3. Data Quality

Sufficiency Criteria

● Ratings scale choices must be clear and have balanced keying (same number of positive and

negative options in Likert scale).

● Feedback provided to the EPP is actionable.

● EPP provides evidence that questions are piloted to determine that respondents interpret them

as intended and modifications are made as needed.

Appendix B: Transition and Phase-in Plan Schedules and

Guidelines

***ALERT***

Transition Plans are only applicable to the 2022 Revised Standards for Initial-Licensure

Preparation. Phase-in plans are only applicable to Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

and are no longer accepted after Spring 2023 visits.

Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation

The Transition Plan Schedule*

Standards for Initial-Licensure

Preparation

CAEP Standards for Initial-Licensure Preparation required for all

accreditation SSRs, reviews, and decisions beginning in Spring 2022

(including stipulation or probation visits)

The Transition plan schedule for

accreditation of Revised Standards

for Initial-Licensure Preparation is

indicated by the time of the site

visit in the columns of this chart→

Specific components of the CAEP

Revised Standards for

Initial-Licensure preparation are

allowed transition plans and are

listed below ↓

Spring 2022 or

Fall 2022

Spring 2023 or

Fall 2023

Spring 2024 and

beyond

● R 1.1 The Learner and

Learning

● R 1.2 Content

● R 1.3 Instructional

Practice

● R 1.4 Professional

Responsibility

● R 2.3 Clinical Experiences

● R 3.3 Competency at

Completion

● R 4.1 Completer

Effectiveness

SSR includes

Transition plans that

are to be accompanied

by current/previous

practice and the most

recent cycle of data

available.

SSR includes

Transition plans and

progress steps

Transition plans end

All components

require full data

complement

*Required Evidence:

● At least one cycle of

previous data

AND

● CAEP Sufficient

Transition Plan for

revised component

*Required Evidence:

● At least one cycle

of previous data

AND

● At least one cycle

of pilot/preliminary

data aligned with

revised

components

AND

● CAEP Sufficient

Transition Plan for

revised component

*Required Evidence:

● Three cycles of

data (This may

include one

previous cycle of

data and two

cycles of revised

or three cycles of

revised)

*All reviews are utilizing the Revised standards

Sufficiency Criteria for Initial-Licensure Preparation Transition Plans

Relationship to Standard or Component

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● An explicit link of the intended

data/evidence to the standard or

component it is meant to inform

● A description of the content and

objective of the data/evidence

collection is included

● Does the transition plan have a specific

connection (e.g., identify by number

and text the component) with

provisions of a revised component?

● Does the transition plan make a

compelling argument that the

data/evidence would be an appropriate

and strong measure of the revised

component?

Timeline and Resources

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● Detailing of strategies, steps, and a

schedule for collection through full

implementation, and indication of

what is to be available by the time of

the site visit

● Specification of additional

data/evidence that will become

available in the calendar years

following accreditation until

completion of the transition plan

steps and will be addressed in

annual reports

● A description of the personnel,

technology, and other resources

available and needed to fulfill the

plan; institutional review board

approvals, if appropriate; and EPP

access to data compilation and

analysis capability

● Does the transition plan include all

steps needed in detail with description

of action and a schedule?

● Does the transition plan identify what

steps have been completed by the time

of SSR and site visit?

● Can the transition plan be reasonably

accomplished within the resources

available to the EPP?

● Does the transition plan specify the

resources needed to complete the

plan, including personnel, technology,

access, or other resources?

● Does the transition plan identify all

semesters/years until full

implementation?

● Timelines for transition plans include

process until 3 cycles of data are

collected.

Data Quality

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● A copy of the collection instrument if

it is available, together with

information called for in the scoring

rubrics, Sufficiency Criteria for

EPP-Created Assessments and

Surveys

● Description of procedures to ensure

that surveys and assessments reach

the sufficient level of the

EPP-Created Assessment and

Surveys

● Steps that will be taken to attain a

representative response, including

the actions to select and follow up a

representative sample (or, a

purposeful sample if that is

appropriate for the data collection)

and actions to ensure a high

response rate

● Steps to ensure content validity and

to validate the interpretations made

of the data

● Steps to analyze and interpret the

findings and make use of them for

continuous improvement

● What was the EPP using previously to

meet this component?

● If tools are already created, do the

surveys or assessments identified in

the transition plan meet the CAEP

Criteria for Evaluation of EPP-Created

Assessments or Surveys? If the tools

are not already created, does the plan

include how they will ensure they will

meet the CAEP Criteria for Evaluation

of EPP-Created Assessments or

Surveys

● How do the surveys and assessments

identified in the transition plan

reasonably be expected to achieve a

representative response and have an

appropriately high response rate?

● How does the transition plan identify

appropriate analyses that have

been/will be conducted with the

data/evidence and appropriate

interpretations are likely to be made?

Phase-In Plan Schedule for Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

The Phase-in Schedule

Standards for Advanced-Level

Preparation

CAEP Standards for Advanced-Level Preparation

required for all accreditation SSRs, reviews, and

decisions beginning in Fall 2018

The Phase-in schedule for

accreditation at the

Advanced-Level is indicated by the

time of the site visit in the columns

of this chart→

The policy applies to specific

components of the CAEP

Standards for Advanced-Level

Preparation listed below ↓

Spring 2021

Fall 2021 or

Spring 2022

Fall 2022 or

Spring 2023

Fall 2023 or

Spring 2024

● RA.1.1, Candidate

Knowledge, Skills, and

Professional Dispositions

● RA.2.1, Partnerships for

Clinical Preparation

● RA.2.2, Clinical Experiences

● RA.3.1, Recruitment

● RA.3.2, Candidates

Demonstrate Academic

Achievement and Ability to

Complete Preparation

Successfully

● RA.3.3, Monitoring and

Supporting Candidate

Progression

● RA.3.4, Competency at

Completion

● RA.4.1, Satisfaction of

Employers

● RA.4.2, Satisfaction of

Completers

● RA.5.2, Data Quality

● RA.5.4 (formerly A5.3),

Continuous Improvement

SSR can

include plans

for new

evidence

items if

evidence is

not complete

or available

SSR includes

plans and

progress

steps

(including

data, if any)

SSR includes

plans and

progress

steps

(including

data, if any)

SSR plus

on-site data

provide EPP

evidence to

document

each standard

Sufficiency Criteria for Advanced-Level Preparation Phase-In Plans

Relationship to Standard or Component

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● An explicit link of the intended

data/evidence to the standard or

component it is meant to inform

● A description of the content and

objective of the data/evidence

collection is included

● Does the phase-in plan have a specific

connection (e.g., identify by number

and text the component) with

provisions of a CAEP component?

● Does the phase-in plan make a

compelling argument that the

data/evidence would be an appropriate

and strong measure of the component?

Timeline and Resources

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● Detailing of strategies, steps, and a

schedule for collection through full

implementation, and indication of

what is to be available by the time of

the site visit

● Specification of additional

data/evidence that will become

available in the calendar years

following accreditation until

completion of the phase-in plan steps

● A description of the personnel,

technology, and other resources

available and needed to fulfill the

plan; institutional review board

approvals, if appropriate; and EPP

access to data compilation and

analysis capability

● Does the phase-in plan include all

steps needed in detail with description

of action and schedule?

● Does the phase-in plan identify what

steps have been completed by the time

of SSR and site visit?

● Can the phase in plan be reasonably

accomplished within the resources

available to the EPP?

● Does the phase-in plan specify the

resources needed to complete the

plan, including personnel, technology,

access, or other resources?

Data Quality

Sufficiency Criteria

Guiding Questions

● A copy of the collection instrument if

it is available, together with

information called for in the scoring

rubrics, Sufficiency Criteria for

EPP-Created Assessments and

Surveys

● Description of procedures to ensure

that surveys and assessments reach

the sufficient level of the

EPP-Created Assessment and

Surveys

● Steps that will be taken to attain a

representative response, including

the actions to select and follow up a

representative sample (or, a

purposeful sample if that is

appropriate for the data collection)

and actions to ensure a high

response rate

● Steps to ensure content validity and

to validate the interpretations made

of the data

● Steps to analyze and interpret the

findings and make use of them for

continuous improvement

● If tools are already created, do the

surveys or assessments identified in

the plan meet the CAEP Criteria for

Evaluation of EPP-Created

Assessments or Surveys? If the tools

are not already created, does the plan

include how they will ensure they will

meet the CAEP Criteria for Evaluation

of EPP-Created Assessments or

Surveys

● How do the surveys and assessments

identified in the plan reasonably be

expected to achieve a representative

response and have an appropriately

high response rate?

● How does the plan identify appropriate

analyses that have been/will be

conducted with the data/evidence and

appropriate interpretations are likely to

be made?

Notes

Appendix C: Additional Resources

CAEP Accreditation Council Policy and Procedures

Glossary

Standard R4 Program Impact

Example Template for Transition Plans