Rationale

This standard asserts the importance of a strong content background and a foundation of pedagogical knowledge for all candidates.  Teaching is complex and preparation must provide opportunities for candidates to acquire knowledge and skills that can move all P-12 students significantly forward—in their academic achievements, in articulating the purpose of education in their lives, and in building independent competence for life-long learning.  Such a background includes experiences that develop deep understanding of major concepts and principles within the candidate’s field, including college and career-ready expectations.[i]  Moving forward, college and career ready standards can be expected to include additional disciplines, underscoring the need to help students master a range of learner goals conveyed within and across disciplines.  Component 1.6 refers “a range of learner goals,” and these would explicitly include interdisciplinary emphases as a complement to the disciplinary focus in component 1.1.  Examples, among others, would be civic literacy, health literacy and global awareness.

Content knowledge describes the depth of understanding of critical concepts, theories, skills, processes, principles, and structures that connect and organize ideas within a field.[ii]  Research indicates that students learn more when their teachers have a strong foundation of content knowledge.[iii]  “Teachers need to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly, so that they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate ideas to one another, and address misconceptions.  They need to see how ideas connect across fields and to everyday life, and how ideas develop a foundation for pedagogical content knowledge[iv] that enables them to make ideas accessible to others.[v]  These essential links between instruction and content are especially clear in Linda Darling-Hammond’s description of what the Common Core State Standards mean by “deeper learning:”[vi]

Pedagogical content knowledge in teaching includes “core activities of teaching, such as figuring out what students know; choosing and managing representations of ideas; appraising, selecting, and modifying textbooks; . . . deciding among alternative courses of action, and analyz(ing) the subject matter knowledge and insight entailed in these activities.”[vii]  It is crucial to “good teaching and student understanding.”[viii]

The development of pedagogical content knowledge involves a shift in a teacher’s understanding from comprehension of subject matter for themselves, to advancing their students’ learning through presentation of subject matter in a variety of ways that are appropriate to different situations—reorganizing and partitioning it, and developing activities, metaphors, exercises, examples and demonstrations—so that it can be grasped by students.[ix]

Understanding pedagogical content knowledge is complemented by knowledge of learners—where teaching begins.  Teachers must understand that learning and developmental patterns vary among individuals, that learners bring unique individual differences to the learning process, and that learners need supportive and safe learning environments to thrive.  Teachers’ professional knowledge includes how cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development occurs.[x]  Neuroscience is influencing education, and future educators should be well versed in findings from brain research, including how to facilitate learning for students with varying capacities, strengths, and approaches to learning.

The Commission’s development of this draft standard and its components has been influenced especially by the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, the Common Core State Standards Initiative[xi], and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ Five Core Propositions.

Examples of Evidence

On equity

Rationale

Education is a practice profession and preparation for careers in education must create nurturing opportunities for aspiring candidates to practice the application of their developing knowledge and skills.  These opportunities take place particularly in real-life situations, but may be augmented by settings and situations enhanced by technology, such as simulations, video and online activities.  The 2010 NCATE Panel report, Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice,[i] identified important dimensions of clinical practice and the Commission has drawn from the Panel’s recommendations to structure the three components of this standard. 

Educator preparation providers (EPPs) seeking accreditation should have strong collaborative partnerships with school district and individual school partners as well as other community stakeholders.  The term “partnerships” for clinical practice signifies a collaboration among various entities in which all participating members pursue mutually agreed upon goals for preparation of education professionals.  Characteristics of effective partnerships include: mutual trust and respect; sufficient time to develop and strengthen relationships at all levels; shared responsibility and accountability among partners and periodic formative evaluation of activities among partners.[ii]  Linda Darling-Hammond and J. Baratz-Snowden[iii] call for strong relationships between universities and schools to share standards of good teaching that are consistent across courses and clinical work.  The 2010 NCATE Panel proposed partnerships that are “strategic” in meeting partners’ needs by defining common work, shared responsibility, authority and accountability.

Clinical educators are individuals from diverse settings who assess, support, and develop a candidate’s knowledge, skills and dispositions during clinical experience. The literature indicates that the quality of the clinical educators, both school-based and provider-based, can ensure the learning of educator candidates and P-12 students.[iv]  Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice described high quality clinical experiences as ones in which both providers and their partners require candidate supervision and mentoring by certified clinical educators—drawn from discipline-specific, pedagogical, and P-12 professionals—who are trained to work with and provide feedback to candidates.  Clinical educators should be accountable for the performance of the candidates they supervise, as well as that of the students they teach.[v]

High-quality clinical experiences take place in a variety of settings including schools; community-based centers; and homeless shelters; as well as through simulations, video analyses, and other virtual opportunities (for example, online chats with students).  Teacher candidates observe, critique, assist, tutor, instruct, and conduct research.  They may be student teachers or interns.[vi]  The experiences integrate applications of theory from pedagogical courses or modules in P-12 or community settings.  They offer multiple opportunities for candidates to relate and reflect upon clinical and academic components of preparation.

The members of the 2010 Panel on clinical preparation and partnerships consulted both research resources and professional consensus reports in shaping their conclusions and recommendations, including proposed design principles for clinical experiences.[vii]  Among these are: (1) a student learning focus, (2) clinical practice that is integrated throughout every facet of preparation in a dynamic way, (3) continuous monitoring and judging  of candidate progress on the basis of data, (4) a curriculum and experiences that permit candidates to integrate content and a broad range of effective teaching practices and to become innovators and problem solvers, and (5) an “interactive professional community” with opportunities for collaboration and peer feedback.  Howey[viii] also suggests several principles, including tightly woven education theory and classroom practice as well as placement of teacher candidates in cohorts.  An ETS report[ix] proposed clinical preparation experiences that offer opportunities for “Actual hands-on ability and skill to use . . .  types of knowledge to engage students successfully in learning and mastery.”  Linda Darling-Hammond and J. Baratz-Snowden[x] proposed an extended clinical experience of at least 30 weeks that is carefully mentored and interwoven with coursework.

Examples of Evidence

On partnerships

a. Memoranda of understanding or data-sharing agreements with diverse P-12 and/or community partners
b. Evidence of tracking and sharing data such as hiring patterns of the school district/school or job placement rates contextualized by partners’ needs
c. Evidence of actions that indicate combined resource allocation and joint decision-making, such as:

On clinical faculty

d. Plans, activities, and results related to selection of diverse clinical educators and their support and retention, such as training and support protocols, including implementation data, with and for clinical educators in EPP programs

On clinical experiences

e. Performance data such as evidence of how candidates develop high leverage instructional practices/strategies throughout their programs in diverse clinical settings, with continuous opportunities for formative feedback and coaching from high quality and diverse clinical educators
f. Evidence that candidates integrate technology into their planning and teaching and use it to differentiate instruction
g. Evidence of candidates’ graduated responsibility for all aspects of classroom teaching and increasing ability to impact all students’ learning
h. Evidence of candidates’ reflection upon instructional practices, observations, and their own practice with increasing breadth, depth, and intention with an eye toward improving teaching and student learning (e.g. video analysis of teaching, reflection logs)
i. Studies of the effectiveness of diverse field experiences on candidates’ instructional practices.
j. Other evidence, including reliable and valid measures or innovative models of high quality partnerships, clinical educators, or clinical experiences

Rationale

Educator Preparation Providers have a critical responsibility to ensure the quality of their candidates. This responsibility continues from purposeful recruitment that helps fulfill the provider’s mission, to admissions selectivity that builds an able and diverse pool of candidates, through monitoring of candidate progress and providing necessary support, and to demonstrating that candidates are proficient at completion and that they are selected for employment opportunities that are available in areas served by the provider. The integration of recruitment and selectivity as EPP responsibilities to ensure quality is emphasized in a recent National Research Council report:[ii]

The quality of new teachers entering the field depends not only on the quality of the preparation they receive, but also on the capacity of preparation programs to attract and select academically able people who have the potential to be effective teachers. Attracting able, high-quality candidates to teaching is a critical goal.

The majority of American educators are White, middle class, and female.[iii] A 2006 study reported 75% of teachers are female, 84% are White.[iv] The makeup of the nation’s teacher workforce has not kept up with the changing demographics. At the national level, students of color make up more than 40% of the public school population, while teachers of color are only 17% of the teaching force.[v] The mismatch has consequences. Goldhaber and Hansen[vi] found that student achievement is positively impacted by a racial/ethnicity match between teachers and students.

While recruitment of talented minority candidates is a time- and labor-intensive process,[vii] “teachers of color and culturally competent teachers must be actively recruited and supported.”[viii] Recruitment can both increase the quality of selected candidates and offset potentially deleterious effects on diversity from more selective criteria—either at admissions or throughout a program.[ix] “Successful programs recruit minority teachers with a high likelihood of being effective in the classroom” and “concentrate on finding candidates with a core set of competencies that will translate to success in the classroom.” [x] There is evidence that providers of alternative pathways to teaching have been more successful in attracting non-White candidates. Feistritzer reports alternative provider cohorts that are 30% non-White, compared with 13% in traditional programs.[xi]

The 2010 NCATE Panel on Clinical Partnerships advocated attention to employment needs as a way to secure greater alignment between the teacher market and areas of teacher preparation.[xii] The federal Department of Education regularly releases lists of teacher shortages by both content area specialization and state.[xiii] Some states also publish supply and demand trends and forecasts and other information on market needs. These lists could assist EPP programs in shaping their preparation program offerings and in setting recruitment goals.

There is a broad public consensus that providers should attract and select able candidates who will become effective teachers. The 2011 Gallup Phi Delta Kappan education poll[xiv] reported that 76% of the U. S. adult public agreed that “high-achieving” high school students should be recruited to become teachers. Another example is found in a recent AFT report on teacher preparation.[xv] AFT seeks to “attract academically capable students with authentic commitment to work with children” and would set GPA requirements at 3.0, SATs at 1100 and ACT scores at 24.0.

Researchers conclude that academic quality, especially in verbal ability and math knowledge, impacts teacher effectiveness.[xvi] A study for McKinsey and Company[xvii] found that high performing countries had a rigorous selection process similar to that of medical schools. Whitehurst[xviii] suggests that education providers should be much more selective in terms of their candidates’ cognitive abilities. When looking at the cost of teacher selection, Levin[xix] found “that recruiting and retaining teachers with higher verbal scores is five to ten times as effective per dollar of teacher expenditure in raising achievement scores of students as the strategy of obtaining teachers with more experience.” Rockoff and others[xx] concluded that “teachers’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills…have a moderately large and statistically significant relationship with student and teacher outcomes, particularly with student test scores.”

In measuring teachers’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills, researchers have found that both cognitive and non-cognitive factors “have a moderately large and statistically significant relationship with student and teacher outcomes, particularly with student test scores.”[xxi] There is strong support from the professional community that qualities outside of academic ability are associated with teacher effectiveness. These include grit, the ability to work with parents, the ability to motivate, communication skills, focus, purpose, and leadership, among others. Duckworth et al[xxii] found “that the achievement of difficult goals entails not only talent but also the sustained and focused application of talent over time.” A Teach for America study[xxiii] concluded that a teacher’s academic achievement, leadership experience, and perseverance are associated with student gains in math, while leadership experience and commitment to the TFA mission were associated with gains in English. Danielson asserts that “teacher learning becomes more active through experimentation and inquiry, as well as through writing, dialogue, and questioning.”[xxiv] In addition, teacher evaluations involve “observations of classroom teaching, which can engage teachers in those activities known to promote learning, namely, self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation.” These “other” attributes and abilities lend themselves to provider innovation. Some providers might emphasize certain attributes because of the employment field or market for which they are preparing teachers.

Several researchers, including Deborah Ball in mathematics education, the MET study[xxv] on components of teaching, and skills approaches such as Lamov‘s Teach Like a Champion, assert there are important critical pedagogical strategies that develop over time. Henry,[xxvi] Noell and Burns,[xxvii] and Whitehurst[xxviii] all found that, in general, teachers became more effective as they gained experience. Both research, as synthesized by the National Research Council,[xxix] and professional consensus, as represented by the Council of Chief State School Officers InTASC standards,[xxx] indicate that the development of effective teaching is a process.

There are various sets of criteria and standards for effective teaching and teacher education; many include performance tasks[xxxi] and artifacts created by the teacher candidate.[xxxii] These standards, like the ones the CAEP Commission has drafted, have a central focus on P-12 learning. Student learning should be a criterion for selecting candidates for advancement throughout preparation. The evidence indicators that appear below can be used to monitor and guide candidates’ growth during a program. The Commission’s draft standard 4 in this report is built around the ultimate impact that program completers have when they are actually employed in the classroom or other educator positions.

Many professional efforts to define standards for teaching (e.g., inTASC; CCSSO, NCTQ, and also rubrics for teaching in observational measures covered in the Gates foundation Measures of Effective Teaching study) recommend that candidates know and practice ethics and standards of professional practice as described in these national standards (such as those in InTASC standard 9 and 9(o)). The Commission recommends that CAEP strongly encourage additional research to define professional practices of P-12 educators, and how these practices, beliefs, and attitudes relate to student learning. (See also CAEP standard 1.9 on equity responsibilities.)

However, many measures of both academic and non-academic factors associated with high quality teaching and learning need to be studied for reliability, validity and fairness. CAEP should encourage development and research related to these measures. It would be shortsighted to specify particular metrics narrowly because of the now fast-evolving interest in, insistence on, and development of new and much stronger preparation assessments, observational measures, student surveys, and descriptive metrics. Instead, CAEP should ask that providers make a case that the data used in decision-making are valid, reliable and fair. States and localities are developing their own systems of monitoring and both providers and CAEP should obtain the data from these systems, where available, to use as valuable external indicators for continuous improvement.

Examples of Evidence

On recruitment:

a. Strategic recruitment plans to achieve the EPP mission, taking account of employment opportunities for its completers, needs to serve increasingly diverse populations, and meeting needs for STEM, ELL, special education and other shortage areas

On admissions in addition to the CAEP floor described in Standard 3.4:

b. Providers set other admissions requirements such as:

On non-academic factors at admissions or during the preparation experiences:

c. Programs demonstrate how they assess non-academic qualities of candidates and how these qualities relate to teacher performance.  Examples might include student self-assessments, letters of recommendation, Interviews, essays, leadership, surveys, Gallup measures, Strength finder 2/0, Meyers-Briggs, and personality tests.
d. Other examples illustrate candidate commitment and dispositions, such as (1) teaching, volunteerism, coaching, civic organizations, commitment to urban issues; (2) content related, goal oriented, data-driven, contributions/ value-add to current employer or organization; (3) mindsets/ dispositions/ characteristics such as coachability, empathy, teacher presence or “withitness,”[xxxiv] cultural competency, collaboration, beliefs that all children can learn; or (4) professionalism, perseverance, ethical practice, strategic thinking, abilities to build trusting, supportive relationships with students and families

During preparation

e. The edTPA test,[xxxv] Renaissance, Teacher Work Samples.  Sample measures that often appear in these forms of assessment are:

f. analysis of video recorded lessons with review and evaluation using rubrics, rater rules and agreement levels
g. observation measures with trained review procedures, faculty peer observations with rubrics
h. appropriate performance measures, including those required by a state
i. content knowledge assessments, standardized test data and general education and content course grades throughout the program with at least a 3.0 average and 3.5 in practica courses.
j. Assessments of specialized abilities when appropriate, such as math content tests or ability to teach reading (as applicable to reading  and other content teachers)
k. Data provided by states on student achievement, teacher observations, student and employer surveys (NOTE: see also the Commission’s recommendations for Standard 4)
l. Evidence of candidate ability to design and use a variety of formative assessments with PK-12 students

At completion

m. Provider criteria that qualify candidates for completion, with program performance documenting that all completers have reached a high standard for content knowledge
n. Provider criteria that qualify candidates for completion, with program performance documenting that all completers can teach effectively with positive impact on P-12 student learning
o. Provider criteria that qualify candidates for completion, with program performance information indicating that all completers understand expectations set out in codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policy

Rationale

CAEP Commission standards 1 through 3 address the preparation experiences of candidates, their developing knowledge and skills, and their abilities at the point of program completion.  Candidate progress and faculty conclusions about the readiness of completers at exit are direct outcomes of the provider’s efforts.

By contrast, Standard 4 addresses the results of preparation programs at the point where they matter—the classroom teaching and other educator responsibilities in schools.  Knowing results, learning from that knowledge, and turning the information back to assess the preparation experiences are the expected responsibilities of every provider.  The Baldrige education award criteria place 45% (450 of 1000) of their rating points on results.  Student results and operational effectiveness are a significant component of those points.  For a preparation provider, the student results have a dual meaning: first, candidate mastery of the knowledge and skills necessary for effective teaching, and second teaching that has positive effects on P-12 student learning.

The paramount goal of providers is to prepare candidates who will have a positive impact on P-12 students.  Impact can be measured in many ways, and one being adopted by several states and districts is known as “value-added modeling.”   A large Gates’ supported research effort, the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project, provides useful guidance about the circumstances under which this model can most validly be used.  These new findings are consistent with those noted in Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy (NRC, 2010):[i]

Value-added models may provide valuable information about effective teacher preparation, but not definitive conclusions, and are best considered together with other evidence from a variety of perspectives.

The MET study also provides empirical evidence not previously available about structured teacher observations that employ videotapes and specific evaluation protocols, and it found that “student perception surveys provide a reliable indicator of the learning environment and give voice to the intended beneficiaries of instruction.”[ii]  Beyond these sources of evidence, some providers will develop close collaborative relationships with districts in which their completers are employed and construct case studies that examine completers’ impacts on student learning.  (NOTE: In addition, the Commission is still considering advice about appropriate conditions for use of evidence, as explained in the penultimate paragraph before Standard 1 on p. 13 of this report.)

Satisfaction measures such as employer surveys can provide useful feedback about completer performance.  The Commission recommends that CAEP encourage more consistent use of employer surveys, and collaborate with states and other stakeholders to create more descriptive and more reliable instruments.  In addition, the actual employment trajectories of completers—their retention, their promotion, their changing responsibilities—are useful indicators of employer satisfaction.  Completer surveys are another source of program impact information.  These can describe completer perceptions of the relevance and utility of aspects of their preparation as they view them in their day to day responsibilities.

An exemplary provider will be able to demonstrate superior impact on P-12 students and also the links between program characteristics and P-12 impact.  The rationale for this exemplary distinction is that exemplary providers contribute to current P-12 achievement through the work of their own completers and to future P-12 achievement by serving as a model for other providers.  (See CAEP Levels of Accreditation in the recommendations, below.)

Examples of Evidence

P-12 student learning

a. Value-added measures of P-12 student learning that can be linked with teacher data
b. State supported measures that address P-12 student learning that can be linked with teacher data
c. Case studies of completers that demonstrate the impacts of preparation on P-12 student learning and can be linked with teacher data

Employer satisfaction

d. Employer surveys and/or focus groups
e. Completer retention
f. Completer promotion and employment trajectory

Observations and surveys

g. EdTPA for in-service teachers (when an in-service version becomes available, or if/when other assessments that provide valid and reliable information about in-service teaching are available)
h. Observations by credentialed evaluators of in-service teachers (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) developed by Bob Pianta and Bridget Hamre; Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson)
i. P-12 student surveys

Completer satisfaction

j. Completer surveys and/or focus groups

Rationale

Effective organizations rely on evidence-based quality assurance systems characterized by clearly articulated and effective processes for defining and assuring quality outcomes and for using data in a process of continuous improvement.  A robust quality assurance system ensures continuous improvement by relying on a variety of measures, establishing performance benchmarks for its measures (with reference to external standards where possible), seeking the views of all relevant stakeholders, sharing evidence widely with both internal and external audiences, and using results to improve policies and practices in consultation with partners and stakeholders.[ii]

Ultimately the quality of an educator preparation program is measured by the abilities of its completers to have a positive impact on P-12 student learning and development.[iii]  Program quality and improvement are determined, in part, by characteristics of candidates that the provider recruits to the field; the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions that candidates bring to the program and acquire during the program; the relationships between the provider and the schools where its candidates receive clinical training; and subsequent evidence of completers’ impact on P-12 student learning[iv] in schools where they ultimately teach.  To be accredited a preparation program must meet standards on each of these dimensions and demonstrate success in its own continuous improvement efforts.

Effective quality assurance systems rely on multiple measures and include a clearly articulated and effective process for defining and assuring quality outcomes.  Reasons for the selection of each measure and the establishment of performance benchmarks for individual and program performance, including external points of comparison, are made clear.  Providers show evidence of the credibility and dependability of the data that inform their quality control systems, as well as evidence of ongoing investigation into the quality of evidence and the validity of their interpretations of that evidence.  Providers must present empirical evidence of each measure’s psychometric and statistical soundness (reliability and validity).[v]

Continuous improvement systems enable programs to quickly develop and test prospective improvements, deploy what is learned throughout the organization, and add to the profession’s knowledge base and repertoire of practice.[vi]  CAEP should encourage providers to develop new models  for evaluating and scaling up effective solutions to problems in educator preparation.  Research and development in the accreditation framework can deepen the knowledge of existing best practices and provide models of emerging innovations to transform educator preparation.[vii]

A provider must have the capacity to support the desired program and candidate outcomes.[viii]  Core program elements include curriculum, faculty/educators, administrative and financial support, and candidate services that support candidates’ ability to positively impact P-12 student learning.  The adequacy and effectiveness of these elements in relation to candidate outcomes must be investigated as part of the quality assurance system.

Examples of Evidence

Quality assurance system

a. The quality assurance system demonstrates capabilities to compile, store, access, manage, and analyze data from diverse sources, including:

Use of Quality assessment and descriptive measures

b. Practices for investigating the quality of data sources and efforts to strengthen and improve the overall quality assurance system

c. Processes for testing the reliability and validity of measures and instruments used to determine candidates’ progress through the preparation program, at completion of the program, and during the first years of practice.  The evidence should meet accepted research standards for validity and reliability of comparable measures and should, among other things, rule out alternative explanations or rival interpretations of reported results.

d. Documentation that data are shared with both internal and external audiences and the use of data for program improvement.

Continuous Improvement Process

e. Documentation of innovations that have been tested and improvements that have been made
f. Examples of leadership commitment to continuous improvement such as planning and implementing change
g. Documentation of stakeholder involvement in the provider’s assessment of the effectiveness of programs and completers

Capacity

h. Curriculum that reflects current needs in P-12 schools as well as national and P-12 state and/or college and career ready standards
i. Quality of faculty members and/or other staff, including the range of relevant experiences such as academic qualifications; P-12 teaching experience and involvement in P-12 schools and districts; and course evaluations by candidates, teaching awards, or P-12 educator feedback to indicate their effectiveness as teachers
j. Facilities that support teaching and learning
k. Fiscal and administrative resources that support programs and P-12 school partnerships; that  develop expertise in new assessments (e.g., edTPA, teacher work samples); that support professional development for content area scholarship and expertise in new technologies, pedagogies, and curriculum (e.g. Common Core State Standards); and that support collaborative inquiry to make decisions regarding priorities and their implementation
l. Candidate support services such as academic advising services, and counseling center services
m. Provider’s recruiting and admissions policies and practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising
n. Information that describes the length and objectives of programs
o. Policies for handling candidate complaints and examples of complaints and their disposal
p. Review of any state actions on the institution or program, or any concerns that have come to the state’s attention