teac powerpoint 1

Apr 9, 20231

Teacher Education Accreditation Council

One Dupont Circle, Suite 320Washington DCwww.teac.org 202-466-7236

Two Key Questions

Do the program’s graduates understand what the faculty claim they know and can do?

What have the faculty learned from their monitoring and inquiry into the program’s quality?

Apr 9, 20232

Logic of TEAC Accreditation

Evidence of Capacity for Program Quality

Evidence of Candidate Competence

Evidence of a System of Quality Control

and Monitoring

Apr 9, 20233

Apr 9, 20234

Overall TEAC GoalOverall TEAC Goal

Public assurance that the program’s graduates are

- competent

Public assurance that the faculty monitors and improves program quality

- qualified- caring

Apr 9, 20235

Assurance based on evidence

Upon what evidence does the program faculty rely – to support their claims that the program’s graduates

are competent?– to convince themselves that their interpretations of

the assessments results are valid?– to convince themselves that program changes &

requirements they impose actually improve the program’s quality?

Apr 9, 20236

What would be bad news?

What change in evidence would be taken as a real, not just a public relations problem? Downturns in --– Student satisfaction with the program– Grades– License test results– Employer satisfaction, hiring rates– What? (New developments in scholarship)

Apr 9, 20237

Generally available indicators of program quality

Grades (major, pedagogy, & clinical)Scores on Standardized tests (candidates’ entrance, exit, and license scores

and perhaps graduates’ own students’ scores)Surveys – students, alumni, employersRatings – portfolios, work samples, casesBasis for Rates – hiring/tenure, certification,

graduate study, awards, publications, NBPTS, etc.

Apr 9, 20238

Criteria for TEAC Candidate Status

0.1 Regional accreditation (or equivalent)0.2 Graduates’ eligibility for a professional license0.3 Commitment to comply with TEAC's standards0.4 Disclosure of accreditation status 0.5 Willingness to provide information to TEAC0.6 Payment of annual indexed fees

Apr 9, 20239

Answer to Key Question 1

1.0 Evidence of Candidate Acquisition of1.1 Subject Matter Knowledge

1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge

1.3 Caring & Effective Teaching Skill

1.4 Each includes evidence of three cross-cutting themes & evidence of validity

– 1.4.1 Learning how to learn (critical reflection)– 1.4.2 Multicultural perspectives & accuracy– 1.4.3 Technology

1.5 Valid interpretations of the assessment evidence

Answer to Question 1 for Educational Leadership

1.0 Evidence of Candidate Acquisition of1.1 Professional Knowledge (organizational theory & development, resource management, school finance & law, instructional supervision, policy & politics, data analysis & interpretation)

1.2 Strategic decision-making (make decisions fairly, collaboratively and informed by evidence,

formulate strategy, articulate a vision)

Apr 9, 202310

Answer to Question 1 for Educational Leadership

1.3 Caring & Effective Leadership Skill (ethical culture, effective program, staff development, safe environment, collaboration with families & community, serve diverse needs, mobilize community resources)

1.4 Each includes evidence of three cross-cutting themes & evidence of validity

– 1.4.1 Learning how to learn (critical reflection)– 1.4.2 Multicultural perspectives & accuracy– 1.4.3 Technology

1.5 Valid interpretations of the assessment evidence

Apr 9, 202311

Apr 9, 202312

Answer to Key Question 2

2.0 Faculty Learning, Inquiry, & Quality Control2.1 Rationale for the assessments showing why they were selected, how they are expected to be valid and the faculty’s pass/fail criterion for each 2.2 A record that some faculty decisions are based on inquiry and evidence2.3 A quality control and monitoring system for the curriculum, faculty, students, and resources that yields evidence of quality, influences decision-making and promotes inquiry.

Answer to Question 2

What has the faculty learned about –1. Whether its quality control system works as

designed

2. Whether the faculty’s interpretations of its assessments are valid

3. Whether the assessments support the claims

4. Whether program requirements positively influence candidate learning

5. Whether more inquiry is needed

Apr 9, 202313

Apr 9, 202314

An argument that the program has the capacity for quality

Parity on common program features with other units at the institution – curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal & administrative resources, candidate support and candidate complaints.

Sufficiency of capacity – curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal & administrative resources, support services and policies & practices

Apr 9, 202315

Accuracy of Brief: Audit Opinions

Clean Opinion: At least 90% targets verified Qualified Opinion: At least 75% targets verified

and/or more than 25% have errors of any kind (trivial and consequential)

Adverse Opinion: More than 25% of the targets are not verified

Disclaimer Opinion: More than 25% of the targets could not be audited

Disclaimer + Not Verified is more than 25%

Apr 9, 202316

TEAC standard of evidence

Evidence is reliable: chance is not a credible explanation for them

Evidence is valid: rival explanations are not credible & evidence is consistent with claims

Evidence is of sufficient magnitude: 75% guideline or heuristic is applied to the empirical maximum (the mean of the top ten percent) when no other guidance is available.

Accreditation Outcomes

Candidate Learning

Faculty Learning

Capacity Accreditation Status

Above Above Above Accreditation (5-10yrs)

Above Below Above Accreditation (2 years)

Below Above Above Accreditation (2 years)

IBP Above Above Initial Accred. (5 years)

IBP Above Below Initial Accred. (2 years)

Above Above Below Accreditation (2 years)

BelowBelow

BelowAbove

AboveBelow

DenyDeny

Apr 9, 202317

Apr 9, 202318

Anatomy of an Inquiry Brief

An Inquiry Brief is a

Research article or monograph (50 pages) Scholarly work Persuasive case of the program’s claims New standard for accreditation self-study

Apr 9, 202319

Inquiry Brief: main sections

1. Introduction (demographics & values)

2. Claims and rationale for assessments

3. Methods of assessing

4. Results

5. Discussion of results and plan of inquiry

6. References

Inquiry Brief Proposal


2. Claims and rationale for the proposed assessments

3. Proposed methods of assessing

4. Proposed results (only pilot or historical evidence actually presented)

5. Plan for further inquiry

6. References

Apr 9, 202320

Inquiry Brief for Re-accreditation


2. Claims and rationale for assessments

3. Methods of assessing

4. Results (including prior Appendix E promises)

5. Discussion of results

6. Results from prior plan of inquiry

7. References

Apr 9, 202321

Apr 9, 202322

Inquiry Brief: Appendices

A. Internal audit of quality control system – it works as designed and makes things better

B. Evidence of capacity and parity (commitment)C. Qualifications of the program facultyD. Program requirements & alignments with state

and/or professional association standardsE. Inventory: analysis of available measuresF. Copies of locally developed assessmentsG. Programs accredited by other agencies

Program Quality Audit Report (PQAR)

Demographics and Claims Description of the Quality Control System Method of Conducting Internal Audit Findings from the Internal Audit with regard to

each part of the TEAC system (1.1 to 3.2.6) Interpretation of the Findings Plans for modifications and further inquiry

Apr 9, 202323

Another Format for the Inquiry Brief: An Expanded Appendix B

Each numbered element, component, subcomponent of the TEAC system is serially and fully addressed (1.1-3.2.6)

Apr 9, 202324

Case Study Format of an Inquiry Brief

A demonstrably representative case is fully described that covers each element , component, and subcomponent of the TEAC system and each program option

Apr 9, 202325

Apr 9, 202326

What is a single program?

Program structure. Essentially the same requirements, rationale, logic, and faculty

Quality control system. Share the same quality control system

Evidence. The evidence can be aggregated honestly (disaggregation)

Apr 9, 202327

TEAC accreditation process at a glance

Application & Candidate status Formative evaluation (optional) Inquiry Brief submitted and declared auditable Call-for-comment & Electronic Survey of Faculty,

Students and Cooperating Teachers Audit visit and Audit Report Analysis of the case by panelists & staff Accreditation Panel recommendation Accreditation Committee decision Acceptance or appeal of the decision Annual Report (Appendix E and data update)