Teacher Preparation

Teacher-Prep Accreditor Names Standards-Setting Panel

By Stephen Sawchuk — February 28, 2012 5 min read

An external panel that includes several prominent critics of teacher education has been tapped to craft the performance standards for the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, the new organization’s leaders announced last week.

Among the standards under consideration: how programs ensure that candidates know their content; the programs’ ability to recruit an academically strong pool of candidates; their success in training teachers to use assessment data effectively; and the performance of their graduates in classrooms.

“We’re really going to up the ante with respect to how programs use data,” said CAEP President James G. Cibulka. “There will be a lot of focus on new sources of data: longitudinal databases, teacher evaluation, the teacher-effectiveness measures coming out of the [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s] Measures of Effective Teaching Project, teacher-performance assessments.

“It’s not only a question of setting new, more rigorous standards, it’s also creating performance measures within these new databases to measure performance more effectively than ever before,” he said.

Commission Members

These individuals have been confirmed as members of the CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting. More appointments are expected.

Camilla Benbow
Dean of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Peabody college

Gene Harris
Superintendent/CEO, Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools

Donna Wiseman
Dean, College of Education, University of Maryland

Patricia Manzanares-Gonzales
Dean, School of Education, Western New Mexico University

Susan Fuhrman
President, Teachers College, Columbia University

Rick Ginsberg
Dean, University of Kansas, School of Education

Tina Marshall Bradley
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs, Paine College

David Steiner
Dean, Hunter College

Mary Brabeck
Dean, School of Education, New York University

Richard DeLisi
Dean and Professor, Rutgers University

Kurt Geisinger
Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska

Julie Underwood
Dean, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Susan Neuman
Professor in Educational Studies, Michigan State University, School of Education

Francis M. “Skip” Fennell
Professor of Education, McDaniel College, Md.

Jill Lederhause
Professor of Education, Wheaton College, Ill.

Paul Lingenfelter
President, State Higher Education, Executive Officers

Terry Holliday
Commissioner of Education, Kentucky Department of Education

Christopher Koch
State Superintendent, Illinois State Board of Education

Arthur E. Levine
President, Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation

Jennifer Stern
Executive Director, Janus Education Alliance, Denver Public Schools

Andrés Alonso
Chief Executive Officer, Baltimore Public Schools

Randi Weingarten
President, American Federation of Teachers

Rebecca Pringle
Secretary/Treasurer, National Education Association

Gail Connelly
Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School Principals

JoAnn Bartoletti
Executive Director, National Association of Secondary School Principals

Thomas W. Payzant
Professor of Practice, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Jim Kohlmoos
Executive Director, National Association of State Boards of Education

Melissa Erickson
Parent Leader, Hillsborough, Fla., Public Schools

SOURCE: Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

CAEP was created in late 2010 by the merger of two separate accreditors, the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, or TEAC, and the far larger and older National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, or NCATE. Both will operate until the merger is completed by the end of this year.

The commission tapped to write the new body’s standards will be chaired by Camilla Benbow, the dean of education and human development at Vanderbilt University, and Gene Harris, the superintendent of the Columbus, Ohio, public schools.

It is arguably a more diverse group than those currently serving in the governance structure of either of the preceding accrediting bodies. At press time, CAEP officials had confirmed 28 panelists on the commission and were working to secure several more—including individuals representing nontraditional preparation programs such as Teach For America and district-operated “residency” programs.

Its members also include math and reading scholars and two state education commissioners, along with a more traditional roster of teacher-educators.

And it includes among its ranks critics of teacher education, such as David M. Steiner, the dean of the Hunter College School of Education in New York City, and Arthur E. Levine, a former dean of Teachers College, Columbia University, and now the president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, which operates a grant program to improve teacher preparation.

Both men wrote reports in the mid-2000s that painted teacher education as a fragmented enterprise; Mr. Levine’s blistering 2006 analysis even suggested that NCATE should be replaced.

Their inclusion on the commission is an indication of how far the new body may be willing to stretch to maintain its relevance. Accreditors of teacher colleges, particularly NCATE, have struggled over the years to articulate the value of the process and to overcome a perception in the field of being too bureaucratic.

“The issue for me is rigorous standards that would define high-quality programs,” Mr. Levine said in an interview. “The problem with accreditation so far is too many weak programs and too many weak institutions get accredited.

“I’d love to see a much higher floor for accreditation and a much clearer sense of what it takes for continuous improvement after a program is accredited.”

Enhancing Prestige?

Establishment of the CAEP panel comes during a period of great interest in improving teacher preparation, from outside reviews, to National Science Foundation-funded research projects, to federal rulemaking on sections of the Higher Education Act dealing with teacher preparation. Many of those projects are weighing similar measures.

Mr. Levine said that if the commission successfully sets stronger standards, it could make accreditation—currently voluntary in most states—more respected by attracting selective institutions that have forgone the process in the past.

But other observers aren’t convinced.

Frederick M. Hess, a scholar at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, who has hosted—and debated with—Mr. Cibulka on accreditation at several public forums, said that the inclusion of critics in the mix was “promising,” but added that “it would be a tough slog” to come to consensus on detailed standards.

“The likelihood is that they’ll still wind up with vague, aspirational, process-oriented standards, as the alternative would likely lead to hundreds of institutions abandoning CAEP, or aggressively pushing back,” he said.

Mr. Hess, who writes an opinion blog for edweek.org, is not serving on the commission.

Assessments Awaited

Drafting the new measures is, in any event, not likely to be an easy task. One of the major challenges could well be the specificity of any new set of performance standards, especially given the general lack of solid research evidence linking any one teacher-preparation approach to effective teaching.

For example, it is unclear how specific the panel will be in seeking to set guidelines for program-entrance requirements. And the question of which outcomes-based data might be relevant for accreditation is an equally thorny topic.

Many teacher-educators are putting their faith in new performance assessments, such as the one being developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and Stanford University scholars, that aim to let programs know when a teacher is ready for the classroom. Such tests require candidates to plan and teach a lesson, demonstrating proficiency in specific skills.

About 25 states are in various stages of piloting the CCSSO group’s assessment, even as other observers raise questions about its cost and relationship to student achievement.

And “value added” methods are perpetually controversial, even for looking at program outcomes. Two states, Louisiana and Tennessee, now release data on how the candidates from teaching programs fare in the classroom, and 12 more plan to do so in the near future. (“ ‘Value Added’ Proves Beneficial to Teacher Prep,” Feb. 22, 2012.)

“How the standards are written is as important as the commitment to raising the bar,” Mr. Cibulka of CAEP said. “Our knowledge base in this field is not as strong as we would like, but we want to create a system that allows us to build best practices and strengthen the knowledge base through empirical inquiry, so the next generation of standards can be more specific about some of these issues.”

CAEP’s own board will need to certify the performance standards before they go into effect. The accreditor will begin reviewing some 900 programs next year.

A version of this article appeared in the February 29, 2012 edition of Education Week as Teacher-Prep Accreditor Appoints Panel to Set Performance Standards


School & District Management Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table With Education Week: What Did We Learn About Schooling Models This Year?
After a year of living with the pandemic, what schooling models might we turn to as we look ahead to improve the student learning experience? Could year-round schooling be one of them? What about online
School & District Management Webinar What's Ahead for Hybrid Learning: Putting Best Practices in Motion
It’s safe to say hybrid learning—a mix of in-person and remote instruction that evolved quickly during the pandemic—is probably here to stay in K-12 education to some extent. That is the case even though increasing
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Mathematics Webinar
Building Equitable Systems: Moving Math From Gatekeeper to Opportunity Gateway
The importance of disrupting traditional American math practices and adopting high-quality math curriculum continues to be essential for changing the trajectory of historically under-resourced schools. Building systems around high-quality math curriculum also is necessary to
Content provided by Partnership for L.A. Schools

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Teacher Preparation Opinion Far Too Many Educators Aren’t Prepared to Teach Black and Brown Students
Teacher-prep programs can help address that inadequacy, writes Sharif El-Mekki.
5 min read
A group of multicolored people stand together looking in both directions
Ada DaSilva/DigitalVision Vectors<br/>
Teacher Preparation Teachers Can Take on Anti-Racist Teaching. But Not Alone
Teachers want to do better by their students of color, but many don’t know how. Madeline Will examines the gap between intention and action.
3 min read
Illustration by Jamiel Law
Teacher Preparation You Have Anti-Racist Curriculum Resources. Now What Do You Do?
Teachers need spaces to explore how power dynamics have shaped the subjects they teach, explains Sarah Schwartz.
4 min read
Illustration by Jamiel Law
Teacher Preparation We All Live Racialized Lives: The 'Identity Work' Teachers Need to Do
Understanding the Black experience also means seeing white privilege, writes education professor LaGarrett King.
3 min read
Illustration by Jamiel Law