The Need for Change

The Environmental Context

NCATE, as all organizations, must be dynamic and respond promptly to changes in its environment. America has become a knowledge-based economy residing in a global marketplace during the 21 st century. The rise of the global economy demands that teachers become even more effective in enhancing P-12 student learning to help maintain America’s ability to compete in the world marketplace. Educator preparation programs, therefore, are under scrutiny as never before. For example, the effectiveness of their graduates is increasingly being tracked by states to help them make decisions on funding only the highest performing, and most cost-effective, programs.

Educator preparation programs in the United States must now respond to the following challenges, among others:

• The need for highly qualified and highly effective teachers for all of America’s schools to help retain America’s economic strength in a global marketplace.
• The pressing need for highly qualified teachers and other school professionals for high-needs schools.
• The need to improve P-12 student learning across diverse populations, as America becomes a more heterogeneous society.
• The need for more clinically-based programs for educator preparation (1) to help increase early school experience and effectiveness with diverse populations and (2) to provide coordinated approaches to the induction and retention of new teachers and other school professionals.
• The diversification of institutions¹ that prepare educators, including increasing numbers of non-university providers, which respond to non-traditional candidates as well as to very specific school and district needs, and which often emphasize clinical experiences and recruitment in ways that could serve as models for all pathways to teaching.
• The recognition that educator preparation and school reform are inextricably bound together, requiring educators to be prepared both as individually skilled practitioners and as professionals oriented toward ongoing school improvement.

Feedback from Institutions

NCATE has received feedback from many institutions on how to improve the accreditation process. This information was the basis of a pilot project, initiated in spring 2008, designed to streamline NCATE’s accreditation process. In order to obtain more systematic feedback from institutions, NCATE President James Cibulka commissioned an opinion research study in the fall of 2008. The survey, conducted by the McKinley Group, addressed the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the NCATE process. A summary of the survey results indicates that, while institutions perceive NCATE as a leader in educator preparation and see its efforts as strengthening the profession, they also perceive its documentation requirements as excessive. Institutions also report that they desire a more collegial accreditation process. This extensive feedback has spurred NCATE to redesign its processes and in so doing, at the same time, help institutions move toward simultaneous transformation of educator preparation and P-12 schools through the mechanism of accreditation, particularly that of continuous improvement.

Values and Goals Undergirding the NCATE Redesign and the Transformation of Educator Preparation

NCATE has the dual challenge of addressing (1) its institutions’ desire for a significantly simplified process to assess their performance in a rapidly changing environment and (2) the larger need to transform educator preparation to meet better the urgent demands of the nation’s P-12 schools.

The redesign process addresses both of these goals. NCATE’s redesign and transformation process strives to create or reinforce five important values: (1) excellence, as defined by high standards, (2) relevance in meeting the needs of stakeholders and the public, (3) inclusivity of all institutions that meet high standards, (4) collegiality in the accreditation process, and (5) its cost-effectiveness.

NCATE has a special role to play in the policy arena as the standards-bearer for educator preparation. It can use its leverage through its standards and processes to ensure that preparation is relevant to the needs of P-12 schools and encourage preparation programs in their ongoing development to meet those needs.

Excellence

The NCATE accreditation process is designed to help educator preparation programs attain excellence.

Continuous improvement strategies are central to the redesigned process, to assist institutions in preparing educators who can help improve all dimensions of P-12 student learning. The redesigned NCATE expects all programs to address their progress in moving beyond the “acceptable” level to the “target” level of performance within the standards. This continuous improvement model helps assure that educator programs remain dynamic, and that they strive to meet high standards. Although NCATE was an early leader in moving accreditation to a performance basis, the ability to assess candidate—and P-12 student learning---has improved since then. An increased reliance on performance assessment continues to be a key feature of the redesigned NCATE accreditation system.

Goal:

• NCATE aims to ensure that accreditation holds educator preparation programs to high standards and creates a baseline for continuous improvement of programs. NCATE will employ continuous improvement strategies to help programs and candidates move from an acceptable level of performance to a target level of performance, with a continued focus on assessment of candidate and P-12 student learning. As the overall field improves, the concept of what is acceptable will rise accordingly.

Relevance

A central criterion in determining excellence is relevance in addressing the needs of stakeholders/publics. Excellence can only be obtained by designing programs to meet stated needs of the ultimate users.

Increasing P-12 student learning requires increasing the evidentiary base of the profession. Accreditation will be transformed as it provides incentives to strengthen research and development in the field. This in turn will increase knowledge of effective practice. NCATE’s redesigned process will offer institutions seeking continuing accreditation an option to develop ”transformation initiatives” that focus on R&D relating to P-12 urgent needs. NCATE will disseminate preparation programs’ R&D via web technology and/or other approaches to encourage scaling up effective practice. As readers will see below, emphasis on continuous improvement processes will be coupled with simplified reporting for compliance purposes.

Further, educator preparation will undergo transformation along with P-12 education, as it aligns better with national, state, and local needs. The system will seek to strengthen partnerships with states, districts, schools, and other institutions as a means to assist both in the transformation of P-12 education and educator preparation programs.

Goal:

• NCATE will provide leadership in simultaneous transformation of P-12 and educator preparation through encouraging ‘transformation initiatives’ focused on urgent local, state, and national needs. Transformation initiatives will involve deeper engagement with the needs of P-12 schools. Through increased engagement with P-12 schools, educator preparation will be focused on increasing all facets of P-12 student learning and the base of knowledge upon which it rests.

Inclusivity

Accreditation exists in a mixed market of providers. The NCATE of the future will include providers of educator preparation outside of colleges and universities. Two non-university providers are candidates for accreditation; discussions are underway with a number of others. It is important that these organizations also meet high quality standards. Accrediting high quality alternative providers and forging partnerships among all providers and school districts must be encouraged and implemented. Recognizing high quality innovations that can be brought to scale should be part of the work of accreditation, whether the innovations exist within institutions of higher education or within other providers. Attempting to differentiate between ‘alternate’ providers and ‘traditional’ university providers leads to a false dichotomy, as many universities offer multiple pathways to the education profession. More partnerships between higher education and other providers in the future may contribute to building models of educator preparation that incorporate new practices in recruitment, preparation, mentoring, and other components of effective preparation.

Goals:

• NCATE will ensure that the procedures for first accreditation accommodate and are equally welcoming to university and non-university providers of educator preparation.
• NCATE will create a system in which continuing accreditation procedures and requirements support innovation and the development of new models for the preparation of educators.

Collegiality

A concern raised by accredited institutions in the 2008 survey was that the accreditation system was very compliance-oriented, rather than a collegial effort to improve the quality of educator preparation and its graduates. Accreditation must create perceived value for educator preparation to help leaders improve their programs. The system should systematically share knowledge and expertise. The redesigned process should eradicate a culture of fear of failure and avoidance of the admission of weaknesses, which magnifies the burden and reduces perceptions of value.

Goal:

• NCATE will emphasize the collegial and formative nature of the accreditation process, in particular, supporting and providing feedback to institutions from the time they are preparing preconditions through their visit, in order to implement a continuous improvement model and help programs attain excellence through a move to the target level of performance.

Cost-Effectiveness

Lastly, the burdensomeness of the accreditation process will be reduced. The effort, time, and cost that an organization places in an accreditation review must result in better programs. Going through accreditation must be perceived as worthwhile by participants in the process and other stakeholders.

Goal:

• Accreditation must be a cost-effective and cost-efficient enterprise for organizations, for NCATE, and for the profession that participates in the accrediting process. It should be focused on continuous improvement and not an every-seven-year event.

Overview of the NCATE Redesign and Transformation Process

As the following recommendations were developed, NCATE staff consulted widely with stakeholders. Over half of the accredited institutions provided feedback in the 2008 survey. President Cibulka sought feedback and recommendations from members of TECSCU, AILACTE, and CADREI as well as NCATE’s member organizations. He has listened to policymakers and institutional representatives as he attended numerous meetings across the country since he became NCATE’s president in July 2008. Drafts in various stages of development were shared for feedback with selected unit heads, NCATE coordinators, Board of Examiners (BOE) members, State Partnership Contacts, Specialty Professional Association (SPA) liaisons, CEOs of member organizations, and governance board members.

• Because an accredited unit was previously found to have met all standards at least at the acceptable level, the Institutional Report (IR) for continuing accreditation addresses changes since the previous review, rather than requesting the detailed requirements for earlier accreditation reviews, and focuses on the unit’s progress toward the target level of one or more standards.
• An accredited unit has the following two options for its unit review:
• Continuous Improvement (Option 1) that primarily focuses on the unit’s self-assessment of its progress toward meeting the target level or
• Transformation Initiative (TI) (Option 2) that includes an initiative that will both improve the unit and its programs and provide research for leadership in the field by meeting an urgent educational need, such as improving P-12 student learning.
• The organization of the IR for both first and continuing accreditation provides the choice of writing to standards or to their specific elements.
• The number of required exhibits is reduced.
• All IRs are reviewed electronically and substantially in advance of the visit for a more formative process that provides early feedback, gives greater opportunity to meet identified concerns, and allows more focus during the visit.
• As a result, on-site visits of only 3 days are conducted by a smaller team of 3-5.

National Program Review

• Programs have the option to select their own assessments and the manner in which to make the case for their validity and sufficiency of evidence.
• Program reports are submitted substantially earlier in the cycle, to provide greater opportunity to meet identified concerns and make the system more formative.
• Requirements for contextual information and years of data are reduced.
• Programs have the option in continuing national recognition to use their previous assessments as a baseline and document only those that are new or substantially changed, but they must still report current data on all assessments.
• Simplified processes are being developed for MAT-like secondary, low-enrollment and advanced programs, in collaboration with appropriate SPAs, states, and institutions; proposals for action are to be submitted this October.
• An SASB task force is developing common principles for SPA program standards to provide greater consistency across them; its report is to be submitted this October.

The next section includes details of the changes, followed by a table that summarizes those changes and compares them to the current process.

The Redesign and Transformation of the NCATE Accreditation Process

I. General Process for Unit Review (Applies to both First and Continuing Accreditation)

I.A Institutional Report

1. Organization. The unit has the option to organize its IR around either whole standards or individual standard elements.
   
2. Units with Only One Program. The focus of the IR for units with only one program, such as educational leadership, school psychology, music, or MAT-like secondary programs, will be the national program report or equivalent state report, supplemented by data and descriptions for Standards 2-6 in the IR.

I.B Exhibits . Reviewers will use documentation previously submitted by units in national program reports, annual reports, and Title II submissions. The number of exhibits on NCATE’s list will be reduced.

I.C Electronic Review of IR. The streamlined IR is submitted substantially in advance of the scheduled visit. A new Previsit BOE Committee (PBOEC), which will include a representative from the state partner, electronically reviews the IR and other documents to provide feedback to the institution on areas of concern to be addressed at the on-site visit.²

I.D On-site Visit

1. Members of Visiting Team. A formal procedure will be developed to allow an institution the opportunity for shared input on the selection of BOE team members, with the goal of providing institutions more comfort about team membership without jeopardizing the objectivity of the team.
   
2. Scope, Length of Visit, and Size of Team. The prior identification of areas of concern and the opportunity for the unit to respond and/or make changes allows for a substantially reduced visit. In a three-day visit, a BOE Team of three to five members will validate that standards are met (including a random sampling of data), focus on concerns raised by the PBOEC, address new matters that come to its attention during the visit, and perform the other functions specified for the particular type of visit.

I.E Annual Reports. Data in the existing AACTE/NCATE annual reports will be furnished to both the PBOEC and the on-site BOE Team as part of the documentation that unit standards are met. Also, if substantive changes raising questions related to standards have been reported in annual reports in accord with existing requirements, additional information will continue to be requested and reviewed by NCATE’s Annual Report and Preconditions Audit Committee (ARPA) to determine if additional action should be recommended to the UAB between scheduled visits. No substantial additional information will be required in Parts B and C of the AACTE/NCATE annual reports at this time. Some changes may be made to the annual reports in 2009-2010.

II. Continuing Accreditation. The unit’s previous accreditation has validated its compliance with all NCATE standards and established a baseline for continuing accreditation. Although a finding of continued compliance with standards is necessary for any reaccreditation, units will have two options for their reviews. One is Continuous Improvement, in which the unit will report changes since the previous visit and focus its self-study on assessment of progress toward the target level of one or more of NCATE’s standards. The second option will focus on the unit’s continuous improvement system and a Transformation Initiative related to one or more standards that are designed to improve educator preparation at the institution and inform the work of the field at large. Figure 1outlines the requirements for both options. The two options are discussed in greater detail below.

Figure 1

II.A Option 1: Continuous Improvement. Standard 2 (Assessment System and Unit Operations) requires accredited institutions to have “an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.” The Continuous Improvement Visit will validate both the maintenance of the baseline established by the unit’s previous accreditation and the effective operation of its assessment system by focusing on changes since the previous visit, particularly those that have enabled the unit to move above an acceptable level of performance towards the target level of one or more standards.

1. Content of the Institutional Report. The unit writes a streamlined IR that is organized around standards, making the case that the unit continues to meet the standards at the acceptable level, but emphasizes (1) evidence related to Standard 1 that was not included in the mid-cycle program review (see IV.B.2, below), (2) substantial changes since the previous accreditation visit, and (3) the unit’s progress in moving to the target level of one or more of the standards
2. Submission of the Institutional Report. The unit selecting the Continuous Improvement Option submits its streamlined IR one year before the visit for review by the PBOEC.
3. Report of On-site BOE Team. In addition to reporting findings about the unit’s continued meeting of standards at least at the acceptable level of performance, the BOE Team will comment on the unit’s progress in moving toward the target level of one or more standards. A specific protocol will be developed for those comments that will recognize institutional efforts to do so.  

II.B Option 2: Transformation Initiative. The TI supports continuous improvement through specific efforts to improve not only the institution’s own programs, but to exercise leadership for transforming educator preparation to improve P-12 student learning. NCATE will encourage and support these research-based initiatives and then propagate their results for the benefit of the field. An individual institution may apply for this option, or a group of institutions may choose to collaborate on an initiative. The process is designed to be as supportive and flexible as possible.

• Clinical practice and moving educator preparation into school settings.
• Evidence of the value-added of accreditation in improving P-12 student learning.
• Overcoming barriers in educator preparation to ensure that candidates have the knowledge and skills to help all P-12 students learn.
• Recruitment of a diverse, highly talented candidate pool, especially for shortage areas.
• Systems for tracking candidate follow-up performance data and its effective use in improving educator preparation.
• Validity studies of assessments or other research on assessments and evidence of candidate ability to facilitate P-12 student learning.
• Partnerships with P-12 schools and school districts to address the transformation of student learning and the conditions that support learning, such as school organization, learning environments, community and family engagement, and other district/school/and student-specific issues of major magnitude.
• Partnerships with P-12 schools to assess and improve student learning and readiness for post-secondary education.
• Partnership with P-12 schools to improve the retention of educators in schools, including induction, mentoring, ongoing professional development, support for National Board Certification and other strategies.
• Candidates’ ability to use formative assessment to design instruction and improve student learning.

In order to be eligible to submit a proposal for a TI, a unit must be accredited without qualifications and show evidence that it is intensively engaged in continuous improvement and continues to meet all unit standards. Steps 1 and 2 below will be used to determine eligibility for the TI Option. The TI itself is described in the following section.

1. Mid-cycle Institutional Report.
1. Content. A Mid-cycle IR is organized around the unit’s continuous improvement efforts and changes since the previous accreditation visit to make the case that all standards continue to be met. The report will include some form of crosswalk or indexing between the discussion and NCATE standards or standard elements so that this determination can be made.
2. Submission. The IR is submitted at mid-cycle (3 years before the visit). No additional IR will be required at the end of the accreditation cycle, but the unit may respond to the concerns raised at the mid-cycle review in writing and/or at the visit.
2. Electronic Review. In addition to its usual functions in an electronic review (see I.C, above), the PBOEC recommends eligibility for the TI option to the UAB based on the likelihood of the unit’s continuing to meet standards at end of cycle.
3. On-Site Visit . The on-site visit follows the new streamlined form (see I.D, above). Because of the greater elapsed time since the submission of the IR, however, the unit should be prepared to furnish on request new data under Standard 1 and further information about any substantial changes described in the unit’s annual reports. The BOE team, which may include an expert related to the TI, will also provide feedback on the initiative.

A separate, but parallel, process is followed for the TI itself as described below.

1. TI Proposal
• Content . The proposal shall not exceed 25 pages in length. NCATE is developing a proposal outline to be used by institutions.
• Submission .The proposal and the unit’s Mid-cycle IR are submitted contemporaneously.
2. Review. A new Committee on Transformation Initiatives (CTI), which will be modeled on the Annual Report and Preconditions Audit (ARPA) Committee, will review the proposal, consult with the institution on any modifications to the proposal, and recommend approval to the UAB.
3. Consultant. At the unit’s request, NCATE may identify a consultant with expertise related to the particular TI, to review the unit’s implementation of it. Consultant expenses will be covered by the unit.
4. On-Site Visit at the Completion of the TI. A separate on-site visit is not required at the completion of the TI.³ If requested by the unit, an expert may join the BOE Team for the on-site visit to provide feedback on the TI.
5. Final Report. When the unit finishes its TI, it submits a final report, including its own evaluation of the results. The designated consultant, if any, reviews the final report, reports to the CTI and UAB on the fidelity of plan implementation and recommends whether results of the TI should be propagated to the field. No summative judgment about the TI will be made.⁴
6. Propagation. The results of Transformation Initiatives will be propagated by NCATE through its website, conferences, and other technologies. Institutions could be identified for additional recognition as appropriate. The letter sent to the CEO of the institution in which the unit is located at the end of the Initiative will include a commendation to the unit for exercising leadership in the field.

III. First Accreditation. The unit generally submits its response to preconditions 18-24 months before the visit. The number of preconditions has been reduced. A shorter time between the submission of preconditions and the visit may be negotiated with NCATE for special conditions, such as an institution with only one program or an institution that has a well-developed assessment system and has been collecting and using data for a number of years. NCATE staff will provide assistance through web seminars, email and telephone communications. The general requirements in Section I outline the changes for a first accreditation visit.

IV. National Program Recognition.

IV.A General

1. Program Report. The data generated for the program review process will continue to be the primary documentation for determining at the unit level that Standard 1 (Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions) is met.
   1. Options as to Choice of Assessments/Organization of Report. NCATE is discussing with the Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) the possibility of their developing model assessments, which have been tested for validity and reliability. Programs that choose to use them could reduce the burden of program review. In the meantime, programs will have two optionsas to the assessments about which they report and the manner in which they make the case for them:
      1. Current Streamlined Option. The program uses the current process of 6-8 assessments, with 5 required types of assessments. It uses the detailed template for program reports, as modified for the streamlining changes described below.
      2. Alternate Option. The program selects its own assessments. In combination, the assessments must address all SPA standards relating to candidate performance. The program will take responsibility for the form on which it makes the case that the assessments demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA standards. Programs will submit a narrative report that outlines their case for satisfaction of the SPA standards, along with assessments, alignment charts, scoring guides, and data charts with the following constraints:
         (1) The number of assessments is limited to no more than 8.
         (2) Submission is required of assessments that provide information on key elements of unit Standard 1 (content, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, and impact on student learning).
         (3) State licensure test data must be submitted.
   2. Years of Data. The number of years of data reported will be reduced to 1 or 2 years. The overall unit’s regular and systematic collection and use of assessment data can be determined during its electronic review and on-site visit by BOE members.
   3. Contextual Information. Some of the items currently required as contextual information that are not necessary for reviewers to make decisions will be eliminated. These may include criteria for admission, retention, and exit (Question 3); description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework (Question 4); and description of the relationship of program assessments to the unit assessment system (Question 5).
   4. Instructions. Instructions for each section of the report will be condensed and clarified.
2. Special Program Areas. Not all programs fit easily into the traditional two-dimensional (unit and program) NCATE process. As previously announced, a special process has already been implemented for middle-school programs Similar consideration will be given to:
   1. MAT-like Secondary Programs. A new process for the review of MAT-like secondary programs is being developed in collaboration with the appropriate SPAs. A proposal for action will be presented to the Specialty Area Studies Board (SASB) and Executive Board in October 2009.
   2. Low Enrollments. A new approach to programs with very low enrollments will be developed. A proposal for action will be presented to the SASB and Executive Board in October 2009.
   3. Advanced Programs. The requirement for the submission of program reports for advanced teaching programs for which NCATE has approved standards (early childhood education, middle level education, and physical education) will be revisited by the SASB. The requirement may be suspended, at least until NCATE has approved a preponderance of advanced teaching standards from the SPAs.
3. Task Force on Standards. To bring greater consistency in standards across programs, NCATE’s Task Force on Program Standards has developed a set of four guiding/ organizing principles for SPA program standards that align with unit Standard 1. The principles include content knowledge, content pedagogical knowledge, learning environments, and professional knowledge and skills, with the concept of student learning interwoven throughout them. The principles will serve as an organizer or framework for the 21 sets of program standards in the different specialty areas. The Task Force report will recommend limiting the number of standards and the number of levels of elements below a standard. The Task Force report will be presented to the SASB and Executive Board for approval in October 2009.

IV.B Continuing National Recognition. The program report for continuing national recognition will be changed as follows:

1. Content. Programs will have three options to make the case for continuing national recognition:
   1. Option A. Programs may use either the full Current Streamlined Option or the full Alternate Option (see IV.A.1.a, above).
   2. Option B. The submission of only new or substantially modified assessments, using the same option as in the previous national review. The existence of a program baseline for continuing program recognition makes it possible to examine only substantially modified or new assessments, together with the data produced by all assessments. The focus will be on the information now submitted for Section V (how the program has used data to improve, what processes must be in place to systematically evaluate the data). The program must describe major changes to its assessments and the effect of the assessments, if a SPA’s standards changed.
   3. Option C. Validity studies of the program’s assessments and data will be submitted as evidence of meeting requirements. This option might include joint participation among several institutions, or at least across programs within an institution.
2. Submission. Program reports will be submitted for national review at the mid-cycle point (three years before the visit) to support a more formative approach that would allow additional time for programs to become nationally recognized. States that conduct reviews of programs will be encouraged to conduct their reviews at the mid-cycle point as well.

IV.C First National Program Recognition. Program reports will be submitted 18-24 months before the semester of the visit, providing a more formative process with time to address any concerns before the visit.

V. Timelines

At this time, NCATE will begin work collaboratively with institutions that may be interested in volunteering to test parts of the new system. These pilots will provide valuable information as the redesigned accreditation process is developed and refined over the next few years. Some institutions are testing streamlined processes in current visits and will continue to do so during the next academic year.

Institutions seeking first accreditation could begin testing parts of the redesigned accreditation system, beginning with preconditions submitted in September 2009. Institutions with visits in spring 2010 and before full implementation of the new system in fall 2012 may submit their IRs for review 6-12 months before their on-site visits. Some parts of the streamlined national program review system could be tested with selected institutions that are submitting program reports in September 2009. NCATE is already discussing the Transformation Initiative with a number of institutions. Several proposals for testing this option will be submitted in spring 2009.

Any institution that would like to test the redesigned process or one of the options for continuing accreditation should contact NCATE staff to discuss the possibilities.

Comparison of Current with New Accreditation Process

Continuing Accreditation (in addition to General, above)

First Accreditation (in addition to General, above)

National Program Recognition: General (First and Continuing)

Continuing National Recognition (in addition to General, above) ⁵

First National Recognition (in addition to General, above) ⁵

1. “Institution” is used throughout the document to include both university and non-university providers of educator preparation. It may include organizations, school districts, state departments of education, and other groups involved in this work.

2. If the Previsit BOE Committee (PBOEC) identifies serious areas of concern for a new institution, it can recommend to the institution, state, and NCATE that the visit be rescheduled to allow more time to develop and submit additional information.

3. Units would have the flexibility to submit proposals for new TIs at almost any time and to propose an appropriate duration for each. Accreditation visits, on the other hand, are required at the end of each 7-year accreditation cycle. Thus, the status of pending Initiatives at the time of the accreditation visit will vary from Initiative to Initiative. Given the non-summative role of NCATE review of Initiatives, it would not be cost-effective to require a separate visit for each one.

4. Because Transformational Initiatives are voluntary and faithfully implemented, an Initiative not achieving expected results may still be valuable to the field.

5. NCATE substantially changed the process for national program recognition in 2004. Programs that have not been recognized under the new process must use the new process for first recognition.