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: Interview preparation 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 may 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. Within the educator preparation landscape, typical examples include:

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, educator preparation and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: Roberta@globaleducationalconsulting.com

 

Top Graphic Credit: Pexels

 

Teacher Effectiveness & Positive Impact: The Dynamic Duo

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher

Shaping Lifelong Learners: The Symbiosis of Teacher Effectiveness and Positive Impact

In education, a lot of emphasis is placed on teacher effectiveness and positive impact, as it should be. It’s widely accepted that teachers are highly influential on students, and that influence doesn’t just stop at the end of the school day or even the school year. Teachers have the ability to impact students’ learning and achievement for many years.

As a society, we want to know that those responsible for instructing our children are competent, caring, reflective, and ethical. We want teachers to possess the kind of skills, knowledge, and dispositions they need to model positive behaviors and support students in their learning and development.

Principals typically are responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of teachers in their building. They come in a few times per year and formally observe and evaluate each teacher “in action” while they’re teaching a lesson. Principals then rate teachers on their effectiveness using various district-approved criteria.

In addition, colleges and universities that prepare future teachers also play an important role in ensuring their graduates will be effective in the classroom.

That said, teacher effectiveness and having a positive impact on students’ learning and development are related concepts but are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), a leading national accrediting body, requires educator preparation providers to show the extent to which program completers are having a positive impact on the learning and development of their P-12 students. However, despite publishing a guide on the topic, the accrediting body doesn’t clearly articulate that while these terms go hand in glove, they are not the same and can’t be measured in the same way.

In order to have well-rounded, successful learners, we need to see evidence of both teacher effectiveness and positive impact. Here’s a brief explanation of the differences between the two:

Measuring Effectiveness vs. Impact

No doubt about it: We need teachers to plan lessons that are aligned to state standards. They must design learning experiences that will help students grasp important skills and concepts throughout the school year. There continues to be a heavy emphasis on using high stakes standardized assessments to measure student learning and subsequently, teacher effectiveness. However, an assessment is typically not a good way to truly measure positive impact. How, for example, can a test determine a student’s love for learning or their social development?

Teacher Effectiveness and Positive Impact

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Outcomes

We all want to see immediate results. When we change our diet or increase our exercise, we typically expect to see outcomes pretty quickly when we climb on the scale, and we’re elated when we see those pounds going down and feel those clothes become looser. However, we may not realize the long-term impact of those efforts for many months or years later. Lowering our cholesterol, taking pressure off our joints, and the like can take quite a while to notice, and can be hard to measure. This is similar in some ways to teacher effectiveness and positive impact:

Long Term vs. Short Term Outcomes

Holistic Development vs. Academic Achievement

We certainly need to support our students’ learning. They need to know facts and critical information about a variety of topics. In turn, they must be able to demonstrate what they know and are able to do within both formal and informal assessments. However, students also need to learn how to interact positively with others, solving problems and conflicts in a way that meets their needs while also treating others with respect. In other words, they need to develop life skills.

Holistic Development vs. Academic Achievement

Student Engagement and Motivation

We need safe, orderly classrooms with sufficient structure, but yet we also need to create learning environments that encourage students to stretch their minds, explore their dreams, and begin the journey of becoming eager lifelong learners.

Student Engagement and Motivation

Striking the Balance: Unveiling the Dual Roles of Effective Teaching

So, a teacher can be effective in a single lesson, or over a unit of study. They can create an orderly, calm learning environment where students are well-behaved. They can create and deliver instructional lessons that are aligned to state standards, and their students can perform well on formative and summative assessments. Those are all examples of teacher effectiveness, and we certainly want that.

However, we also need our teachers to support their students as individuals, helping them to feel excited and motivated. We need teachers to encourage learners to think creatively and critically and ask questions. We want educators to empower students so they gradually take on a greater role in their own learning and decision making. Those are the kinds of influences teachers can and should have on their students, because those are skills that students will carry with them for the rest of their lives. That’s positive impact.

Beyond the Classroom: Nurturing Effective Teachers for Lasting Impact

In summary, while teacher effectiveness is an important aspect of education, having a positive impact on students’ learning and development involves a more comprehensive and long-term perspective. It extends beyond academic achievements to encompass holistic growth and lifelong learning skills. Teacher education program faculty should integrate these concepts into their coursework and clinical experiences. They should also be working in partnership with local school districts by exchanging ideas and providing professional development. Developing highly effective teachers who make a positive impact on students’ learning and development requires a concerted effort, and it doesn’t happen overnight.

###

 

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, educator preparation and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: Roberta@globaleducationalconsulting.com

Top Photo Credit: Zainul Yasni on Unsplash 

Transforming Higher Education: The Power of Student Mentoring Programs

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
Mentoring

Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of higher education, the quest for student success remains a central concern for colleges and universities across the United States. While academic advisors play a pivotal role in guiding students through their educational journey, a more personalized and intensive approach is required to meet the needs of at-risk students. This is where student mentoring programs step in. Here I explore the concept of student mentoring in higher education — delving into its benefits, potential drawbacks, and its significant role in enhancing institutional effectiveness and accreditation efforts.

Understanding the Role of a Student Mentor

In traditional academic advising, the primary focus is on helping students chart their academic paths and assisting with course registration. However, there exists a group of students who require a more hands-on and personalized approach. These students, often referred to as at-risk, may struggle with various aspects of their college experience, be it academic, financial, or personal. A student mentor is a specially trained individual who goes beyond the traditional academic advisor’s role.

A mentor typically:

  • Interacts with students regularly: A mentor engages with the student multiple times each month through various communication channels, including email, phone calls, text messages, virtual conferences, or in-person meetings. This frequent interaction helps build a strong support system for the student.
  • Acts as a liaison: A mentor serves as a bridge between the student and various university services. If a student encounters difficulties with financial aid applications, the mentor can either assist directly or connect the student with the appropriate staff in the Financial Aid office. Similarly, if a student is struggling academically, the mentor can facilitate tutoring services.
  • Monitors student progress: If a student begins to miss classes or falls behind in their coursework, the mentor plays a proactive role in reaching out to the student. They work with the student to identify the reasons for their struggles and collaboratively develop a plan for academic success.

The Benefits of a Strong Mentoring Model

The traditional academic advising model often relies on students seeking assistance, which may not be sufficient for at-risk students. However, a strong mentorship model, where a mentor is assigned to a student upon matriculation and remains with them until graduation, offers numerous advantages:

  • Improved Student Success: A mentor’s consistent support and guidance significantly contribute to student success. At-risk students often face challenges that can derail their academic progress, and a mentor helps address these issues promptly, leading to higher achievement and improved GPA.
  • Enhanced Student Retention: By closely monitoring a student’s academic journey, a mentor can identify and address issues that may lead to dropouts. This proactive approach contributes to higher retention rates, which is a key concern for colleges and universities.
  • Greater Student Satisfaction: The personal connection and support provided by mentors lead to increased student satisfaction. Knowing there is someone dedicated to their success boosts students’ morale and confidence.
  • Improved Institutional Effectiveness: A well-structured mentorship program aligns with institutional effectiveness goals. It provides a systematic approach to monitor, support, and measure student success, helping institutions meet accreditation standards more effectively.
  • Accreditation Compliance: Accreditation bodies, such as the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE), and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), emphasize the importance of demonstrating support for student success. A strong mentorship program positions institutions to meet these requirements effectively.

Challenges and Drawbacks to a Mentoring Model

While student mentoring programs offer immense benefits, there are challenges and potential drawbacks that institutions need to consider:

  • Financial Costs: Implementing a mentorship program requires hiring and training mentors, which can strain an institution’s budget. However, the long-term benefits often outweigh the initial costs.
  • Workload for Mentors: Mentors must be dedicated and properly trained to address a wide range of student needs. The workload can be intensive, and managing a caseload of at-risk students requires effective time management and organizational skills.
  • Scalability: Scaling a mentorship program to accommodate a growing student population can be challenging. Institutions must carefully plan and allocate resources to ensure the program’s success as the student body expands.
  • Cultural Shift: Shifting from a traditional academic advising model to a mentorship program may require a cultural shift within the institution. Faculty, staff, and students need to adapt to the new approach.

Practical Steps for Implementing a Student Mentorship Program

To successfully implement a student mentorship program in your institution, consider the following practical steps:

  • Assess Student Needs: Identify the specific needs of your student population. Conduct surveys, focus groups, and data analysis to understand the challenges at-risk students face.
  • Define Mentor Roles: Clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of mentors. Determine how they will interact with students and which services they will connect students with.
  • Mentor Training: Invest in comprehensive training for mentors, covering areas such as academic support, communication skills, and campus resources. Training is crucial for ensuring mentors are well-prepared to assist students effectively.
  • Integration with Existing Services: Ensure seamless integration with existing university services, such as academic advising, financial aid, and tutoring. Mentors should collaborate with these services to provide holistic support.
  • Data and Monitoring: Implement a data-driven approach to monitor the program’s impact on student success. Regularly assess the program’s effectiveness and make adjustments as needed.
  • Student Outreach: Promote the mentorship program to incoming students and engage them from day one. Assign mentors to students upon matriculation to establish a strong support system from the start.
  • Resources Allocation: Allocate necessary resources, both in terms of personnel and budget, to support the program. Consider seeking external funding sources if needed.

Conclusion

In the quest for higher education excellence and student success, student mentoring programs play a pivotal role. These programs provide a more personalized, proactive, and comprehensive approach to supporting at-risk students, ultimately leading to improved retention, student satisfaction, and academic success. While there are financial and logistical challenges, the long-term benefits, including compliance with accreditation standards and institutional effectiveness goals, make student mentoring a worthwhile investment for colleges and universities.

In a rapidly changing higher education landscape, the transformational power of student mentoring programs can be the catalyst for lasting change, ensuring that all students have the opportunity to thrive and succeed in their academic pursuits.

###

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, educator preparation and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: Roberta@globaleducationalconsulting.com

Top Photo Credit:  Monica Melton on Unsplash

Soft Skills and Dispositions: Essential Traits for Exceptional Teachers

Posted on by Roberta Ross-Fisher
Soft Skills and Dispositions

We often read today about soft skills but feel confused as to what this means. Soft skills are also commonly known as dispositions. Regardless of the term you use, soft skills and dispositions are connected to our attitudes, our work habits, and our interpersonal skills.

Being an effective teacher or school leader involves much more than simply possessing a solid command of subject matter or earning a certain grade point average (GPA). It also takes more than an ability to write lesson plans, or to maintain discipline in a classroom.

Soft Skills, Dispositions Defined

Accrediting bodies such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) as well as the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) emphasize the role that soft skills or professional dispositions play in effective teaching and school leadership.

These bodies hold schools of education accountable for identifying, selecting, and graduating individuals who indicate a propensity for success as an educator. This includes demonstrating specific soft skills or professional dispositions.

In a white paper focusing on knowledge, skills, and dispositions sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the Innovative Lab Network (ILN) defined dispositions as: mindsets (sometimes referred to as behaviors, capacities, or habits of mind) that are closely associated with success in college and career.

Our Soft Skills Leave an Impact on Others

Our soft skills and dispositions make a statement about who we are, what we believe, and what kind of employee we will be.

For example, being an effective teacher requires numerous skills that are essential to teaching and learning success. Not all of these skills involve subject area expertise.

When students are asked to think back to their favorite teacher–the ones who made the greatest impact on their lives, they make comments like these:

  • She always made me feel as though I mattered.
  • He had a great sense of humor!
  • She could admit when she had made a mistake.
  • He was tough, but always fair. 
  • Being in Mr. ______’s class made me want to become a teacher. 
  • She was kind of like a mom to me when my life was in such chaos.
  • She always encouraged me to keep going and told me she knew I could make it. And I did. 

Comments like these are the result of teachers who made a profound impact on their students’ lives. The impact isn’t just academically, but personally.

Soft Skills & Dispositions: Our Professional “Compass”

Soft skills or dispositions stem from our beliefs, our attitudes, and our professional “compass” that steers us through life. For example:

  • Do I really care about children?
  • Am I compassionate and empathetic?
  • Am I responsible enough to arrive on time each day?
  • Do I respond promptly to phone calls or emails from parents?
  • Do I begin each day fully prepared?
  • Am I respectful of other ideas or traditions, even if they differ from my own?
  • Do I take responsibility for my own actions?
  • Do I take the high road even when no one else is looking?

 

Ten Essential Key Soft Skills for Teachers

In its research, the Innovative Lab Network was able to pinpoint 10 key soft skills or dispositions that effective teachers possess:

Correlation to Student Success

STRONG IMPACT

MODERATE IMPACT
  • Self-Efficacy
  • Initiative
  • Integrity
  • Intellectual Curiosity
  • Adaptability
  • Study Skills
  • Time & Goal Management
  • Collaboration
  • Communication
  • Problem Solving
  • Leadership
  • Critical Thinking
  • Self-Awareness

The Role of Grit and Self-Control

Renowned psychologist and researcher Angela Duckworth identified two key characteristics that closely predict achievement across multiple professions: grit and self-control.

In essence, grit is the ability to play the long game – to remain focused and committed to meeting long-term goals. In other words:

Grit means not giving up and moving on to something else when there are challenges or bumps in the road.

 

Self-control is similar to self-discipline. It refers to not allowing ourselves to act on impulses and not needing instant gratification.

In many ways, grit and self-control are related. Individuals who possess these traits can remain focused on accomplishing their long-term goals and are able to cross the finish line.

We need teachers and school leaders with grit and self-control.

 

What School Districts Look for When Hiring Teachers

Many school principals and human resource directors are looking to hire teachers who demonstrate professional traits and behaviors such as:

  • Adaptable, confident, & organized
  • Good communicators & lifelong learners
  • Team players but also leaders
  • Imaginative, creative, & innovative
  • Committed to Students & the Profession
  • Can locate engaging resources, including technology
  • Empowered and inspire students
  • Successfully manages a positive online reputation
  • Able to periodically unplug from technology & social media

It’s essential to hire teachers who will make a long-term positive impact on the achievement, success, and lives of our students. Subsequently, building principals need to provide teachers with professional development support and mentoring at all career phases to foster their soft skills.

 

###

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, educator preparation and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: Roberta@globaleducationalconsulting.com 

 

Top Graphic Credit: Adam Winger on Unsplash

 

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, educator preparation and competency-based education. Specialty: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).  She can be reached at: Roberta@globaleducationalconsulting.com

Top Photo Credit:  Carlos Muza on Unsplash 

 

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