Telling Your Story through a Self-Study Report

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
Self-Study Report SSE

Educator preparation providers (EPPs) seeking programmatic accreditation through the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) must build a case for how their programs comply with specific standards. This is done through a combination of written narratives and supporting pieces of evidence. In most cases, these evidence artifacts are anchored by key assessment data, meeting minutes, examples of acting on input from stakeholders, continuous program improvement initiatives, and the like. All the narrative responses and pieces of evidence are assembled into a Self-Study Report (SSR).

Writing the Self-Study Report: A Daunting Process

Writing the self-study report can feel daunting and at times, overwhelming. EPPs must be able to communicate clearly and concisely how they comply with all aspects of each standard. Writers must be able to think and write from both a macro perspective (making connections across programs) as well as a micro perspective (focusing on specific aspects of each program).

Some faculty members equivocate writing the SSR to the stress they recall when writing their doctoral dissertation. Others think of it as trying to catch a tiger by its tail. Still others try not to think of it at all and fervently hope they won’t see their name listed as part of a CAEP writing team. Without question, this is a challenging process. However, it’s very doable and manageable, particularly if we start to look at the SSR a little differently.

The Role of Testing

No matter what state or specific licensure program is involved, EPPs must assess their teacher candidates multiple times throughout their program. When we test our candidates, we are able to get a glimpse of what they know and are able to do against a specific set of criteria at the particular moment in time. However, we know that no single assessment can provide us with the kind of information we need to make judgments about the quality of our programs. In order to accomplish this, we must administer a suite of high-quality assessments throughout the program. Based on our review of those test results, we can start to gain insight about specific trends, patterns, strengths, and weaknesses.

If we look at these data separately, they just don’t tell us that much. It’s when we put them all together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that we start to build a portrait of each program and eventually, we can draw conclusions about the EPP as a whole.

Seeing the Self-Study Report as a Portfolio

In their article focusing on student digital portfolios, co-authors Ronnie Burt and Kathleen Morris quoted international researcher and consultant Dr. Helen Barrett:

“Testing gives you a snapshot. Portfolios give you a movie.”

This is so true, and I think Barrett’s quote fits in very well within the context of Self-Study Reports for accreditation. When it’s fully assembled, the SSR can be used as a showcase for institutions to “put their best foot forward” and highlight their successes. However, the SSR is really like a portfolio that tracks progress over time. While not exactly the same, the two actually share a lot in common:

  1. Purpose: Both a self-study report and a portfolio are designed to demonstrate an individual or organization’s knowledge, skills, and abilities in a particular area. A self-study report aims to demonstrate how an institution meets the standards set by the accrediting body, while a portfolio showcases an individual’s achievements, skills, and experiences.
  2. Evidence: Both require the collection and presentation of evidence to support claims. In a self-study report, evidence may include data, surveys, and other documentation that demonstrates how an institution meets the accreditation standards. In a portfolio, evidence may include work samples, certificates, awards, and other materials that showcase an individual’s accomplishments.
  3. Organization: Both a self-study report and a portfolio require careful organization to present evidence effectively. An SSR written for CAEP, for example, follows a specific structure over five standards, while a portfolio may be organized according to the individual’s goals and accomplishments.
  4. Reflection: Both an SSR and a portfolio require reflection on the evidence presented. In a self-study report, reflection may involve analyzing data and identifying areas for improvement. In a portfolio, reflection may involve assessing strengths and weaknesses and identifying areas for growth.
  5. Evaluation: Both a self-study report and a portfolio require evaluation by others. CAEP site team reviewers evaluate an EPP’s compliance of components within the five standards, while a portfolio may be reviewed by an employer, a mentor, or a peer. In both cases, the evaluation provides feedback and helps the individual or organization improve their work.

As I’ve outlined above, a self-study report written for accreditation and creating a portfolio share similarities in their purpose, evidence collection, organization, reflection, and evaluation. Both require a thoughtful approach to presenting evidence and reflecting on accomplishments and areas for growth.

If we can start to view the self-study report a little differently and approach it more from a portfolio mindset, I think the stress level will start to diminish and the overall quality of narratives and pieces of evidence will begin to improve. Rather than submit a dry and often disjointed self-study report, we can produce a rich, substantive body of work that presents a powerful story about our programs.

###

About the Author: A former public school teacher and college administrator, Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher provides consultative support to colleges and universities in quality assurance, accreditation, and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com

Top Photo Credit:  Carlos Muza on Unsplash 

 

Interview Preparation: An Essential Part of a Successful CAEP Site Visit

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
CAEP Interview Preparation

Let’s cut to the chase: Preparing for interviews is one of the best things an institution can do to ensure a successful accreditation outcome.

Preparing for an accreditation site visit is always stressful for higher education faculty and staff, even under the best of circumstances. Depending on whether it’s a regional (institutional) accrediting body, a state compliance audit, or a programmatic accreditor, there are certain processes and procedures that must be followed. While each body has its own nuances, there’s one thing institutions should do to prepare, and that is to help their interviewees prepare.  This piece will focus helping educator preparation programs prepare for a Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) site visit.

Important note: The guidance below focuses exclusively on the final months and weeks leading up to a site visit. The actual preparation begins approximately 18 months before this point, when institutions typically start drafting their Self-Study Report (SSR).

2-4 Months Prior to the Site Visit

Approximately 2-4 months prior to a site visit, the CAEP team lead meet virtually with the educator preparation program (EPP) administrator(s) and staff. Sometimes, representatives of that state’s department of education will participate. By the end of this meeting, all parties should be “on the same page” and should be clear regarding what to expect in the upcoming site visit. This includes a general list of who the team will likely want to speak with when the time comes.

A Word About Virtual and/or Hybrid Site Reviews

The onset of Covid-19 precipitated a decision by CAEP to switch from onsite reviews to a virtual format. Virtual or hybrid virtual site reviews require a different type of preparation than those that are conducted exclusively onsite. I think the more we start to see Covid in the rearview mirror, the more accreditors like CAEP will start to gradually ease back into onsite reviews, or at least a hybrid model. I provided detailed guidance for onsite reviews in a previous post.

CAEP has assembled some very good guidelines for hosting effective accreditation virtual site visits, and I recommend that institutional staff familiarize themselves with those guidelines well in advance of their review.

Interviews: So Important in a CAEP Site Visit

Regardless of whether a site visit is conducted on campus or virtually, there’s something very common:

An institution can submit a stellar Self-Study Report and supporting pieces of evidence, only to fail miserably during the site review itself. I’ve seen this happen over and over again.  Why? Because they don’t properly prepare interviewees. Remember that the purpose of site visit interviews is twofold:

First, site team reviewers need to corroborate what an institution has stated in their Self-Study Report, Addendum, and supporting pieces of evidence. In other words:

Is the institution really doing what they say they’re doing?

For example, if the institution has stated in their written documents that program staff regularly seek out and act on recommendations from their external stakeholders and partners, you can almost bet that interviewees will be asked about this. Moreover, they’ll be asked to cite specific examples. And they won’t just pose this question to one person. Instead, site team reviewers will attempt to corroborate information from multiple interviewees.

Second, site team reviewers use interviews for follow-up and answering remaining questions that still linger after reading the documents that were previously submitted. So for example, if both the Self-Study Report and the Addendum didn’t provide sufficient details regarding how program staff ensure that internally created assessments meet criteria for quality, they will make that a focus in several interviews.

In most instances, the site team lead will provide a list of individuals who can respond accurately and confidently to team members’ questions. Typical examples include:

      • Dean
      • Assessment Director
      • Field Experiences Coordinator
      • Full-Time Faculty
      • Key Adjunct Faculty
      • Current candidates representing multiple programs under review
      • Program completers representing multiple programs under review
      • Site-Based Clinical Educators (Cooperating teachers from field experiences)
      • EPP-Based Clinical Educators (the institution’s field experience supervisors)
      • P-12 partners (i.e., superintendents, principals, teachers, etc.)

However, I had seen instances where the team lead asks the institution to put together this list. Staff need to be prepared for either scenario.

Mock Visits: Essential to Site Review Interview Preparation

Just as you wouldn’t decide a month in advance that you’re going to run a marathon when the farthest you’ve been walking is from the couch to the kitchen, it’s to an institution’s peril if they don’t fully prepare for an upcoming site visit regardless of whether it’s onsite, virtual, or hybrid.

I’ve come to be a big believer in mock visits. When I first started working in compliance and accreditation many years ago, I never saw their value. Truthfully, I saw them as a waste of time. In my mind, while not perfect, our institution was doing a very good job of preparing future teachers. And, we had submitted a Self-Study Report and supporting pieces of evidence which we believed communicated that good work. We took great care in the logistics of the visit and when the time came, we were filled with confidence about its outcome. There was one problem:

We didn’t properly prepare the people who were going to be interviewed.

During site visits, people are nervous. They’re terrified they’ll say the wrong thing, such as spilling the beans about something the staff hopes the site team reviewers won’t ask about. It happens. Frequently.

When we’re nervous, some talk rapidly and almost incoherently. Some won’t talk at all. Others will attempt to answer questions but fail to cite specific examples to back up their points. And still others can be tempted to use site visit interviews as an opportunity to air their grievances about program administrators. I’ve seen each and every one of these scenarios play out.

This is why it’s critical to properly prepare interviewees for this phase of the program review. And this can best be done through a mock site visit. Another important thing to keep in mind is that the mock visit should mirror the same format that site team members will use to conduct their program review. In other words, if the site visit will be conducted onsite, the mock visit should be conducted that same way. If it’s going to be a virtual site visit, then the mock should follow suit.

Bite the bullet, hire a consultant, and pay them to do this for you.

It simply isn’t as effective when this is done in-house by someone known in the institution. A consultant should be able to generate a list of potential questions based on the site team’s feedback in the Formative Feedback Report. In addition to running a risk assessment, a good consultant should be able to provide coaching guidance for how interviewees can communicate more effectively and articulately. And finally, at the conclusion of the mock visit, they should be able to provide institutional staff with a list of specific recommendations for what they need to continue working on in the weeks leading up to the site visit in order to best position themselves for a positive outcome.

If you’re asking if I perform this service for my clients, the answer is yes. There is no downside to preparation, and I strongly encourage all institutions to incorporate this piece into their planning and budget.

While the recommendations above may feel exhausting, they’re not exhaustive. I’ve touched on some of the major elements of site visit preparation here but there are many more. Feel free to reach out to me if I can support your institution’s CAEP site visit effort.

###

About the Author: A former public school teacher and college administrator, Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher provides consultative support to colleges and universities in quality assurance, accreditation, and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com

 

Top Graphic Credit: Pexels

 

Preparing for a CAEP Site Visit

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
CAEP Site Visit

Preparing for an accreditation site visit is always stressful for university faculty and staff, even under the best of circumstances. Depending on whether we’re talking about a regional accrediting body, a state compliance audit, or a discipline-specific accreditor, there are certain processes and procedures that must be followed. This piece will focus helping teacher preparation programs prepare for a Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) site visit.

Essential CAEP Site Visit Preparation Items

Approximately 2-4 months prior to a site visit, the CAEP team lead will meet virtually the educator preparation program (EPP) administrator(s) and staff. Sometime representatives of that state’s department of education will participate. By the end of this meeting, all parties should be “on the same page” and should be clear regarding what to expect in the upcoming site visit. Here are the topics that are essential to cover. Keep in mind that these items are for onsite program reviews. Due to COVID, all site visits are currently being conducted virtually.

Virtual and/or Hybrid Site Reviews

Virtual or hybrid virtual site reviews require a different type of preparation than those I’m describing below. In those instances, an institution’s IT staff must take great care several months prior to the review to create a secure, user-friendly repository for internal faculty and staff drafts but also for the evidence library and final submission documents. Moreover,  those IT staff must build on that digital framework for use during the review for site visitors. There are several key considerations that are needed when building out the digital repository. Those are beyond the scope of this publication and require a separate article.

Travel Details

    • Confirm preferred airport
    • If arrival and departure times coincide, team prefers to pick up a rental car at the airport and provide their own transportation during the site visit.
    • Otherwise, EPP will need to make ground transportation arrangements

School Visits

    • Not required, but generally requested by the team if there are concerns regarding clinical experiences. Typically limit of 2 (from different grade levels such as 1 Elem & 1 HS)
    • Should not require significant drive time
    • EPP should provide a guide (typically faculty) to drive and serve as host/hostess
    • Usually should take no more than 1 hour onsite at school

Hotel and Onsite Workrooms

    • Must be secure and private; lockable.
    • Only site team members and state representatives are to enter the work rooms.
    • Conference table large enough to accommodate all team members and state representatives
    • Printer, secure wifi, LCD or HDTV projector
    • Shredder
    • Basic office supplies (i.e., stapler, paper clips, post-its, note pads, pens, highlighters, etc.)

Food/Snacks Onsite and in Hotel Workroom

    • There should be healthy snacks and beverages (i.e., bottled water, coffee, soda) in the work room at the hotel and on campus.
    • The team will eat breakfast at the hotel each morning.
    • If at all possible, the team will want to remain on campus for lunch, with the ideal arrangement to have lunch catered either in the workroom or in an adjacent room.
    • The EPP should suggest a variety of restaurants within easy driving distance of the hotel for dinner each night.

Interviews: So Important in a CAEP Site Visit

Generate a list of individuals who can respond accurately and confidently to team members’ questions. Typical examples include:

      • Dean
      • Assessment Director
      • Field Experiences Coordinator
      • Full-Time Faculty
      • Key Adjunct Faculty
      • Current candidates representing multiple programs
      • Program completers representing multiple programs
      • Cooperating teachers from field experiences
      • Clinical supervisors
      • P-12 partners (i.e., superintendents, principals, teachers, etc.)

Onsite Interview Rooms

      • Depending on final schedule, site team members may need to use 3 rooms simultaneously.
      • There must be a door for private conversations and deliberations.
      • EPP representatives should not attend interviews with candidates, program completers, or cooperating teachers
      • EPP should prepare sign-in sheets for each interview.
      • A staff member should get all participants to sign in and then leave the room.
      • All sign-in sheets should be sent to the site team lead.
      • Requests for Additional Information or Data: All requests should flow from and back to the site team lead.

Advanced Preparation is Key to a Successful CAEP Site Visit

This list may feel exhausting, but it’s not exhaustive. I have included only the most essential items here. Remember–advanced preparation is one key to a successful site visit. University staff should do their homework and know what is required. Get organized. Appoint someone with experience to coordinate the event. Start well in advance. And if in doubt, hire a consultant. Each institution’s success depends in no small part to their ability to earn accreditation. This process is quite complex and should never be taken lightly.

###

 

About the Author: Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher has expertise in higher education quality assurance, educator preparation, and competency-based education. A former public school teacher and college administrator, Roberta is now an educational consultant specializing in the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). 

Twitter: @RRossFisher

Email: globaleducationalconsulting@gmail.com 

 

Top Graphic Credit: Scott Graham on Unsplash

CAEP Data Collection & COVID-19

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
CAEP Data Collection

According to the most current COVID-19 information we have, there are now almost 4 million college students in the United States whose institutions have either transitioned quickly to an online learning environment or have shut their doors entirely for several weeks. While definitely a challenging undertaking, it’s doable. Most students will be able to weave their way through the bumps in the road to successfully complete the spring semester. However, Colleges of Education faculty grapple with how to maintain quality assurance during the COVID-19 crisis. The nation’s only accrediting body recognized by the US Department of Education is the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  A major aspect of CAEP’s expectations is data collection. 

CAEP Data Collection: Continuous Program Improvement

CAEP requires continuous program improvement based on ongoing data review and analysis. Institutions must look for patterns and trends over time in order to identify specific strengths and weaknesses within each teacher licensure program. Once gaps are determined, action must be taken to shore up those weaknesses. 

Continuous program improvement is dependent upon reliable data that have been harvested from valid assessments. That’s why educator preparation providers (EPPs) must select key assessments for each licensure program. They must then gather, review, and analyze data from those assessments per an established cadence or periodicity. 

CAEP’s Three Data Cycles

CAEP requires three cycles of data for analysis in preparation for an accreditation site visit. While CAEP leaves it up to each EPP to define, institutions often count one academic year as representing one cycle of data. Other institutions count a cycle as one semester. A few institutions have “rolling registrations” meaning they enroll new candidates each month. Those institutions sometimes define a cycle as being the equivalent of 8 weeks or perhaps a six-month term. Regardless, institutions must collect data regardless of circumstance–and that includes exceptional circumstances such as COVID-19.

The Dilemma COE Faculty Face with CAEP Data Collection

College of Education faculty and administrators are grappling with how to continue collecting the kind of data they need for CAEP’s continuous program improvement model. For example, what happens when local P-12 school districts close, and teacher candidates are unable to complete their required observations or early field experience requirements? Even worse, what if candidates are unable to complete their student teaching? In addition to completing required observations, reflections and lesson plan designs, what will happen if teacher candidates are unable to complete video clips of them teaching a lesson? These are all very real concerns, and faculty must come together to address them. But what are best practices in situations like this, and what should be avoided? 

Knee-Jerk Reaction #1: This is Beyond Our Control, So We’re Off the Hook

A very common reaction to situations like COVID-19 is to give in to the circumstance and throw our hands up: 

This is beyond our control, so we’re going to do nothing. Surely CAEP will understand and give us a pass. Wrong. So very wrong.

While your challenges are difficult and frustrating, keep in mind that all other Colleges of Education are experiencing the same thing. While that should bring some level of comfort, it does not come with a “free pass” from CAEP. This accreditor cannot (and should not) lower expectations, even in times like these. Why? Because like all difficult situations, this too shall pass--and those teacher candidates will eventually complete their programs and graduate. They will land their first teaching job where they will embark upon a career of shaping young lives. Will watering down teacher requirements be fair to those young students? 

Knee-Jerk Reaction #2: Just Collect Some Data–ANY Data

Some faculty will be tempted to act out of desperation to just “collect some data” for the purpose of checking a box to say they have completed their CAEP data collection requirements. It may not be useful for monitoring the quality of programs or making improvements, but it’s collected anyway just so they can have something to report for this cycle.

For example, if the local P-12 schools are shut down and candidates are unable to teach a required lesson, some faculty may go so far as to allow candidates to “teach” the lesson to their pets, or to a cooperative audience of stuffed animals. Candidates would then view their video and write a reflection of their “teaching”. Think I’m kidding? Think again.

To have candidates quickly throw together a video or complete an exercise just for the sake of checking off a box doesn’t make sense. What possible insight can candidates glean about the experience? Moreover, what insight could faculty members surmise about the strength of their program using such practices? 

A Reasoned Approach to CAEP Data Collection & COVID-19

 As experienced, highly trained educator preparation providers, we know the futility in making knee-jerk reactions, and we know CAEP will maintain high expectations. But, what’s the best approach to take? The logistics will vary from institution to institution, but here’s a rule of thumb that applies across the board: 

Any effort to collect data that doesn’t result in something useful is a wasted effort. 

We must always return to the purpose of our policies, procedures, and practices: Why are we doing this? What’s the intended end result? If the purpose is to identify strengths and weaknesses, look for patterns & trends, and make continuous program improvements, then we must make sure those policies, procedures, and practices will help us to achieve those goals. 

In challenging times, COE faculty should put their professional hats on and look at this as an opportunity for creative problem solving. They should consider other data collection methods that would yield reliable results. 

Who knows? They may be able to come up with some CAEP data collection methods that they hadn’t even thought of before. Those methods that may be far better than the ones they are using now. However, they won’t know unless they are willing to solve this problem together, as experienced, highly competent professional educators.  

###

About the Author: Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher has expertise in educator preparation, accreditation, online teaching & learning, and competency-based education.  A former public school teacher and college administrator, Roberta is now a freelance writer and educational consultant. 

Twitter: @RRossFisher                       

 

 

Top Graphic Credit: membersuite.com 

Video Presentation: Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation (Segment 2)

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher

Is your institution gearing up for an accreditation site visit in the next year or two? Not quite sure where to begin? If so, please check out my video presentation entitled, Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation. The presentation has been broken into two segments:

Segment #1 provides an overview of the accreditation process, focusing in particular on the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).

Segment #2 provides very practical information and suggestions for what staff can do to increase the likelihood of a smooth and successful site visit.

Here you can access Segment #2:

[wpvideo 2d1WMSxF]

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in quality assurance, educator preparation, and empowerment-based learning. She supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as accreditation, competency-based education, and teacher/school leader prep programs design.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Video Presentation: Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation (Segment 1)

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher

Is your institution gearing up for an accreditation site visit in the next year or two? Not quite sure where to begin? If so, please check out my video presentation entitled, Practical Strategies for CAEP Site Visit Preparation. The presentation has been broken into two segments:

Segment #1 will provide an overview of the accreditation process, focusing in particular on the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).

Segment #2 provides very practical information and suggestions for what staff can do to increase the likelihood of a smooth and successful site visit.

Here you can access Segment #1:

[wpvideo YG8qHUDa]

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in quality assurance, educator preparation, and empowerment-based learning. She supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as accreditation, competency-based education, and teacher/school leader prep programs design.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

Professional Dispositions: Essential Traits for Effective Teaching & School Leadership

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher

Thanks for visiting this page.

The content of Professional Dispositions: Essential Traits for Effective Teaching & School Leadership has been incorporated into the following publication:

Key Skills and Dispositions: Essential Traits all Exceptional Teachers Must Have

 

Please click the link to learn more about this important topic. Thanks for being committed to academic excellence!

 

–rrf

 

Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher is a national leader in accreditation, quality assurance, teacher preparation, and empowerment-based learning. An accomplished presenter, she currently supports educational institutions and non-profit agencies in areas such as quality assurance, accreditation, competency-based education, and educator preparation.  Roberta also writes about academic excellence and can be contacted for consultations, webinars, and on-site workshops through her site (www.robertarossfisher.com). 

###

CAEP Site Visit Logistics

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher

Preparing for an accreditation site visit is always stressful for university faculty and staff, even under the best of circumstances. Depending on whether we’re talking about a regional accrediting body, a state compliance audit, or a discipline-specific accreditor, there are certain processes and procedures that must be followed. For the sake of brevity, this piece will focus on one discipline–that of teacher preparation–using the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) as the sample accrediting body.

There are some important topics to be covered during a pre-visit conference call between the site team lead, the education preparation provider (EPP), and state representatives. By the end of this call, all parties should be “on the same page” and should be clear regarding what to expect in the upcoming site visit. Here are the topics that are essential to cover:

  • Any general questions the EPP has regarding completion of the Addendum
  • Confirm Addendum submission date
  • Review and revise draft visit schedule
  • Travel Details
    • Confirm preferred airport
    • If arrival and departure times coincide, team prefers to pick up a rental car at the airport and provide their own transportation during the site visit.
    • Otherwise, EPP will need to make ground transportation arrangements.
  • Reminder per CAEP guidelines: No receptions, banquets, poster sessions, dinners with EPP representatives, etc.
  • School Visits
    • Not required, but generally requested by the team if there are concerns regarding clinical experiences. Typically limit of 2 (from different grade levels such as 1 Elem & 1 HS)
    • Should not require significant drive time
    • EPP should provide a guide (typically faculty) to drive and serve as host/hostess
    • Usually should take no more than 1 hour on-site at school
  • Work Room at Hotel and on Campus
    • Must be secure and private; lockable.
    • Only site team members and state representatives are to enter the work rooms.
    • Conference table large enough to accommodate all team members and state representatives
    • Printer, secure wifi, LCD or HDTV projector
    • Shredder
    • Basic office supplies (i.e., stapler, paper clips, post-its, note pads, pens, highlighters, etc.)
  • Food/Snacks
    • There should be healthy snacks and beverages (i.e., bottled water, coffee, soda) in the work room at the hotel and on campus.
    • The team will eat breakfast at the hotel each morning.
    • If at all possible, the team will want to remain on campus for lunch, with the ideal arrangement to have lunch catered either in the workroom or in an adjacent room.
    • The EPP should suggest a variety of restaurants within easy driving distance of the hotel for dinner each night.
  • Interviews
    • Generate interviewee list. Examples include:
      • Dean
      • Assessment Director
      • Field Experiences Coordinator
      • Full-Time Faculty
      • Key Adjunct Faculty
      • Current candidates representing multiple programs
      • Program completers representing multiple programs
      • Cooperating teachers from field experiences
      • Clinical supervisors
      • P-12 partners (i.e., superintendents, principals, teachers, etc.)
      • Other:
    • Interview Rooms
      • Depending on final schedule, 3 rooms may be needed simultaneously.
      • Should have a door for privacy
      • EPP representatives should not attend interviews with candidates, program completers, or cooperating teachers
      • EPP should prepare sign-in sheets for each interview.
      • A staff member should be responsible for get all participants to sign in and then leave the room.
      • All sign-in sheets should be sent to the site team lead.
    • Requests for Additional Information or Data
      • All requests should flow from and back to the site team lead.

There will be additional items to discuss but these are the most essential. Remember–advanced preparation is one key to a successful site visit. Do your homework and know what is required. Get organized. Appoint someone with experience to coordinate the event. Start well in advance. And if in doubt, hire a consultant. Earning accreditation is crucial to an institution’s overall success and should never be taken lightly.

###

 

About the Author: Dr. Roberta Ross-Fisher has expertise in educator preparation, CAEP accreditation, and competency-based education. A former public school teacher and college administrator, Roberta is now an educational consultant and adjunct professor.