deans meeting may 1, 2020€¦ · indiana dean group 5.1.20|12 caep process template opens in...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Together for Student Success
Renee BarattaEducator Preparation and P12
Partnership Specialist
@EducateIN
Deans MeetingMay 1, 2020
Scott BoganDirector of Higher Education and Educator Preparation Programs
@EducateIN
● Welcome and Introductions● Purpose and Background (Scott and Renee)● CAEP Updates (Matt Vanover and Malina Monaco)● Q & A (EPPs, CAEP, and IDOE)● State Partnership Homework Jotform (EPPs)● Closing Remarks
@EducateIN
● Background of State Partnership with CAEP○ Partnership Agreements
● Current Program Review Options for Licensure Programs○ Program Review Options by State
● Review Process since 2015● Seeking Feedback for Potential Revisions to Review Process
@EducateIN
@EducateIN
*Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation; http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/program-review-options
@EducateIN
● Welcome Malina Monaco and Matt Vanover
@EducateIN
@EducateIN
● Indiana’s Current Partnership Agreement● Jotform: https://form.jotform.com/200854789497070● Submit Responses No Later than Friday, June 19
@EducateIN
Scott Bogan Director of Higher Education and Educator Preparation [email protected]
Renee BarattaEducator Preparation Program and P12 Partnership [email protected]
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|1
Matt VanoverDirector of External Affairs
Malina MonacoVice President of Accreditation, CAEP
Indiana Dean GroupMay 1, 2020 | Virtual
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|22
33 States and the District of Columbia
States with CAEP Agreements
AL, AR, AK, AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, WA, WV
By the Numbers
caepnet.org
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|3
State Agreements and State Roles
•State Agreements
•Provide Formal Process for Accreditation
•Outline Specific State Requirements
•Ensure All EPPs Treated Equitably
•Reduce State Costs
•Provide Independent Outside Quality Control
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|4
State Agreements and State Roles
•CAEP Only Team
The site team is appointed by CAEP using nationally trained
site visitors.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|5
State Agreements and State Roles•Calculating Team Size
•Base size team of five
• Add members based on several factors
• Number of Initial Programs
• Number of Completers
• Offers Programs at Multiple Sites
• First Visit
• Advanced Review
• Number of Advanced Programs
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|6
State Agreements and State Roles•Calculating Team Size
•Base size team of five
• Reduce members based on several factors
• Low Number of Programs
• Joint Visit
• Interim Visit
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|7
State Agreements and State Roles•Concurrent Team
• Two separate teams.
• One appointed by CAEP looking at CAEP standards.
• One appointed by state reviewing state requirements.
• Assists EPPs with logistics to reduce number of visits.
• Teams work separately.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|8
State Agreements and State Roles•Joint Site Team
•Team includes site visitors appointed by CAEP and site visitors
appointed by the state.
•All visitors must be nationally trained.
•CAEP reduces team size by one.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|9
State Agreements and State Roles•Joint Site Team
• No requirement for state to send the maximum number of site visitors.
• The joint visit agreement allows for a state to recommend visitors,
but does not require it.
• If state does not recommend, CAEP will send additional visitor
from the national pool.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|10
State Agreements and State Roles•Site Team Composition
•CAEP Appointed Visitor
• Nationally trained site visitor appointed by CAEP.
• Write to standards and participate in all activities
•State Recommended Visitor
• Visitor appointed by the state. Must be nationally trained by CAEP.
• Write to standards and participate in all activities
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|11
We all feel this way at some point…….
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|12
CAEP PROCESS
Template opens in AIMS-18 months prior to visit semester
Self Study Report (SSR)- Due to CAEP 9 months prior to visit (EPP)
Formative Call- (Team)
Formative Feedback Report (FFR)- Team will submit FFR to EPP 5 months prior to visit.
(Team)
SSR Addendum- EPP has 60 days to submit after FFR is received (EPP)
Site Visit Report (SVR)- Team submits within 30 days of Site Visit to CAEP (Team)
Factual correction- EPP submits any factual corrections within 7 days (EPP)
Final SVR- Submitted within 7 days of Site Visit (Team Lead)
Rejoinder- EPP has 30 days after receiving Final SVR to respond (EPP)
Rejoinder response- Team lead has 2 weeks after receipt of Rejoinder to respond (Team
Lead)
Accreditation Council- Meets in October (for past Spring visits) and April (for fall visits)
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|13
❖ 59 institutions reviewed by Accreditation Council
❖ 43 Full Accreditation (7 years) (74%)
❖ 4 Accreditation with Stipulation (2 year accreditation term) (7%)
❖ 11 Accreditation with Probation (not meeting 1 CAEP Standard, 2 year term)(19%)
❖ 2 Initial Accreditation (7 years)
❖ 2 revocations (ARM committee)
Accreditation Decisions
Fall 2019 Accreditation Council
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|14
AFI vs. Stipulation
1
4
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|15
Overview of Accreditation Decisions # of AFIs - Initial
(n= 59 EPPs AFIs) Fall 2019
Total Comp. 1 Comp. 2 Comp. 3 Comp. 4 Comp. 5 Comp. 6
Standard 1 30 9 4 6 4 7 N/A
Standard 2 34 16 9 9 N/A N/A N/A
Standard 3 26 13 5 4 2 1 1
Standard 4 42 15 8 10 9 N/A N/A
Standard 5 62 6 14 16 11 15 N/A
Total 194
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|16
Overview of Accreditation Decisions # of Stipulations- Initial
(n= 59 EPP) Fall 2019
Total Comp. 1 Comp. 2 Comp. 3 Comp. 4 Comp. 5 Comp. 6
Standard 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 N/A
Standard 2 2 0 0 2 N/A N/A N/A
Standard 3 4 2 0 2 0 0 0
Standard 4 5 1 4 0 0 N/A N/A
Standard 5 32 8 11 4 5 4 N/A
Total 46
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|17
Overview of Accreditation Decisions # of AFIs*- Advanced(n= 7 EPP) Fall 2019
Total
Standard A1 3
Standard A2 3
Standard A3 4
Standard A4 2
Standard A5 12
Total 24
*Fall 2019 had 0 Stipulations for the Advanced Standards.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|18
What we see...Standard AFIs and Stips
Standard 1Data not disaggregated by program or InTASC or both; Not clearly articulating the State process for program review; 3 Cycles of Data (or if less than 3, what did you do previously?); Just submitting SPA report
Standard 2Not understanding “co-construction”; No training of clinical partners & online materials; No evaluation of partnerships & partners OR data not shared; Minimal clinical experience or candidate controlled
Standard 3No recruitment plans OR plans for university OR plans for the system; No clearly articulated progression plans/gateways, no monitoring; Dispositions - IF they collect, often no discussion of decision making process
Standard 4COMPLETERS are not student teachers; Focus on incomplete state data rather than solutions to address need; Pilots of surveys with no data, Really poor survey quality, survey data with no context or connection; WHO completes the surveys does not align with standard
Standard 5Multiple measures that are intentional not redundant; Data is not actionable; Fewer than 3 cycles of data (not applicable to phase in components for advanced); No systematic process for data sharing and decision making; No stakeholder input; Unclear reporting structure
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|19
Let’s Talk About Standard 5
19
The FIELD
MALINA
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|20
Phase in Plans
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|21
Initial- Component 4.1
❖ The CAEP Board has allowed
for component 4.1 (initial) to
continue under phase in until
the end of the standards
review process.
❖ A CAEP sufficient plan plus
progress steps.
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|22
Importance of Plans to Advanced Reviews
● A.1.1, Advanced preparation
candidate knowledge and skills in their
professional specialization field
● A.2.1, clinical partnerships
● A.2.2, clinical experiences
● A.3.1, admission of diverse candidates
who meet employment needs
● A.3.2, demonstrate academic
achievement and ability to complete
parathion successfully
● A.3.3, candidate progress during
preparation
● A.3.4, professional and ethical
preparation
● A.4.1, employer satisfaction with
preparation and employment
persistence of completers
● A.4.2, completer satisfaction with
preparation
● A5.2 relevant, verifiable,
representative, cumulative
● A.5.3, testing innovations as part of
Standard 5, continuous improvement
● A.5.4, CAEP outcome measures:
licensure, completion placement,
consumer information
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|23
Advanced Components NOT Under Plans
A.1.2 - Professional Responsibilities
A.5.1 - Quality and Strategic Evaluation
A.5.5 - Stakeholder involvement in Quality Assurance
System
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|24
Phase in Plan sufficiency criteria are located in
Consolidated Handbook, Appendix B on pages
81-84
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|25
Plans Include
• Relationship to CAEP Standard or Component• Timeline and Resources• Data Quality
“I plan to do some stuff
sometime before my next visit.”
“I plan to do that.”
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|26
26
SPA REVIEW WITH NATIONAL RECOGNITION
CAEP EVIDENCE REVIEW OF STANDARD 1/A.1
STATE REVIEW
STANDARDS Specialized Professional Association
(SPA) Standards
EPP-selected specialty area national standards
State-specified specialty area standards
TIMING Initial Review begins 3 years before site visit
Evidence uploaded in Evidence Room of SSR due 9 months before
site visit
State specifies timing
REVIEW SPA-trained reviewers CAEP site visit team State-trained reviewers
Program Review Options
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|27
Questions?
ContactDr. Malina Monaco
Vice [email protected]
Matt Vanover
Director of External Affairs
Indiana Dean Group 5.1.20|28
Questions