One of the more under-the-radar areas of teacher education is also one of the most divisive: accreditation. And as the field continues to evolve, the debate over how best to determine the success and quality of the programs tasked with producing classroom-ready teachers remains far from settled.
The national accreditation of educator-preparation programs, voluntary in most states, has had a tumultuous history. For more than a decade, there were two national accrediting bodies; they merged in 2010 in an attempt to unify a diffuse field. The resulting group, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, intended to raise the bar for teacher preparation but struggled to secure support. Seven years after the merger, the field was divided once more as the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation was formed, offering teacher-prep programs a new way to prove their effectiveness.
The goal of accreditation is for teacher-prep programs to demonstrate, through a variety of measures, that they are producing strong teachers who are well equipped to lead their own classrooms. But the two national accreditors differ on exactly how to demonstrate program effectiveness鈥攁nd even on whether programs should have a choice in accreditation at all.
Fewer than half of the country鈥檚 roughly 2,100 providers participate in the accreditation system; most of those that do are traditional schools of education at colleges and universities. So far, AAQEP, which began issuing decisions in 2019, has accredited 33 teacher-preparation providers, while CAEP has accredited 423 providers since 2016.
Just last month, AAQEP announced it had received recognition from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which reviews the effectiveness of accrediting agencies. (CAEP was already recognized by the group.) AAQEP President Mark LaCelle-Peterson said the recognition will encourage more providers to come on board: 鈥淲e expect next year to be even busier in terms of growth,鈥� he said.
Already, CAEP鈥檚 president, Christopher Koch, says his group has lost 鈥渜uite a few members鈥� to AAQEP. He believes that letting providers shop around for which accreditor they want to evaluate their programs is damaging for an already-embattled field. National enrollment in teacher-prep programs has declined by a third over the past decade.
鈥淲e believe, still, a single set of standards for the profession is incredibly important, now more than ever,鈥� Koch said. 鈥淭his past year, with AAQEP鈥檚 emergence, we are hearing more and more, 鈥榃e want choice; we want this or that.鈥� But we think that there鈥檚 a continuing erosion here for preparation and preparation standards in the wrong direction鈥攖hat other professions wouldn鈥檛 do in similar circumstances, but somehow that鈥檚 OK for teaching. And that鈥檚 sending out messages that anyone can teach.鈥�
Teacher-prep standards evolve
The two accreditors have very different approaches to determining the quality of teacher education. CAEP requires to prove programs鈥� selectivity and effectiveness. don鈥檛 include any requirements for specific benchmarks, and evidence is evaluated holistically.
鈥淚 think that CAEP has always really embodied teacher education鈥檚 era of accountability,鈥� said Elizabeth Stringer Keefe, the director of graduate teacher education at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., who studies teacher preparation. 鈥淭heir initial messaging was, 鈥榃e鈥檙e going to raise the bar, we鈥檙e going to hold teacher education accountable. We鈥檙e the gold standard of accreditation. It鈥檚 a broken system that can be fixed in three easy steps: If we improve teacher education, we improve teacher quality, and then we improve student achievement.鈥欌��
But CAEP struggled to rally the field around its set of standards. For example, CAEP originally required programs鈥� incoming candidates to have an average 3.0 grade point average upon admission and hold scores averaging in the top half on nationally normed achievement assessments, like SATs. But after significant pushback, CAEP revised the standard to say that candidates have until graduation to meet the requirements.
Colleges also struggled with CAEP鈥檚 standard on program impact, which requires programs to provide all available growth measures鈥攚hich could include value-added measures and student-growth percentiles鈥攕howing that when their graduates become teachers with their own classrooms, their students perform well, and that school districts are satisfied with the teachers that programs are producing. Some teacher-educators have complained that it鈥檚 nearly impossible to obtain some of that information because their states don鈥檛 collect it.
鈥淭eacher-educators don鈥檛 disagree with the idea that they should be accountable, they disagree with the notion that these issues can be solved by quantifying the way we look at accountability,鈥� Stringer Keefe said. 鈥淎AQEP emerged, in a sense, during a time of dissatisfaction around how CAEP was proceeding and developing. There was some disagreement that there should be a single accreditor, and that was never quelled. I think the competition will certainly stand.鈥�
Since AAQEP鈥檚 emergence, she said, CAEP has 鈥渞eally softened its own language.鈥� And indeed, CAEP has worked to respond to some of the more common complaints. In December 2020, the accreditor , which will go into effect in 2022. They are the second set of standards in CAEP鈥檚 history, revised due to a requirement in the organization鈥檚 bylaws to review the standards every seven years.
CAEP kept many of its demands for evidence鈥攊ncluding the 3.0 GPA requirement鈥攂ut removed the requirement that candidates score in the top half of those assessed on nationally normed achievement tests. Koch said that language was 鈥渄istracting鈥� from the standard鈥檚 intent. 鈥淧eople were hung up on the test scores,鈥� he said.
Some in the field had argued that such a requirement posed a barrier to Black and Hispanic candidates, who tend to score lower than their white and Asian counterparts on standardized tests like the SAT or ACT.
CAEP also revised its standard on program impact to remove references to specific data points, such as value-added measures. Those data can still be used as evidence, Koch said, but they were never required, and providers had mistakenly thought they were.
鈥淲hen we surveyed the field, 鈥� people鈥檚 impressions of what the standards were requiring versus what the wording of the standard was [were] very different,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd we tried many, many means of trying to educate them about them and what flexibility was actually there, but there were certain terms that people just can鈥檛 get around right now.鈥�
CAEP also added more of an emphasis on technology, equity, and diversity in its standards. Providers are now asked to disaggregate candidate data by race, ethnicity, and any other categories that may be relevant for the provider鈥檚 mission, such as socio-economic status or the geographic region they鈥檙e from.
Accreditors balance improvement with accountability
As CAEP went through its standards revision process, Koch said there was a 鈥渂alancing act鈥� between flexibility and rigor. It鈥檚 important for the profession, he said, for there to be a tough鈥攁nd, he argues, singular鈥攕et of standards for teacher-preparation providers.
CAEP has given probationary accreditation to 40 programs and denied or revoked the accreditation of nine programs. But AAQEP has accredited some of the programs that didn鈥檛 meet CAEP鈥檚 standards, Koch said.
鈥淐ontinuous improvement is important鈥攊t鈥檚 one of our standards and it鈥檚 really key, but so is accountability,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 really can鈥檛 be convinced that giving everybody a pass and saying it鈥檚 all about continuous improvement without accountability is the right answer.鈥�
LaCelle-Peterson said all programs that are accredited by AAQEP must demonstrate evidence of program quality. For instance, Alfred University in western New York had its CAEP accreditation revoked and was then accredited by AAQEP, but only after a two-year improvement process in which the institution made significant changes to its program, he said.
AAQEP鈥檚 accreditation process, LaCelle-Peterson said, is not easy鈥斺�渙ur quality expectations are as high or higher鈥� than CAEP鈥檚, he said鈥攂ut there is a lot of support.
Institutions pursuing accreditation through AAQEP are grouped into cohorts and have video calls monthly in which they share tips for meeting some of the standards, like how to get in touch with graduates to determine how they鈥檝e adapted to their own classrooms. Those meetings have been particularly valuable during the pandemic, LaCelle-Peterson said, since institutions leaned on each other to figure out remote instruction and manage student-teaching experiences.
He added that the recognition from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation validates AAQEP鈥檚 approach.
鈥淐HEA鈥檚 new standards really increase the emphasis on accreditation not stifling innovation but actually supporting it, and really respect local institutional context,鈥� LaCelle-Peterson said. 鈥淚 think our standards and our system are tremendously well set up for that. [We prioritize] outcomes and quality, [but it鈥檚] not about standardizing the means you use to get there.鈥�
鈥業t can be burdensome, [but] it鈥檚 necessary work鈥�
The University of Maryland, College Park is one of 13 providers that earned accreditation from AAQEP last year, both for its initial teacher-preparation program and its graduate programs in reading, school counseling, and school psychology. The college of education had previously been accredited by CAEP and decided to make the switch because of the opportunities for flexibility and collaboration, said Ebony Terrell Shockley, the executive director of teacher education at the University of Maryland. AAQEP鈥檚 accreditation process was just as rigorous as CAEP鈥檚, she said, but it was less rigid.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean you鈥檙e less rigorous because you鈥檙e choosing to look at a wide range of data that supports the variety of institutions you have,鈥� Shockley said. 鈥淓verybody doesn鈥檛 have to meet the same standards in the same way to demonstrate proficiency or to excel across a particular standard. ... It is not just based on compliance, it is based on performance with multiple measures and multiple perspectives.鈥�
Meanwhile, the college of education at the University of Utah is nearing the end of its first seven-year term with CAEP鈥攊ts accreditation expires December 2023. (The program was among the first to be reviewed by CAEP in 2016, although it initially received probationary accreditation because it did not meet one part of the standard on program impact. The college received full accreditation in 2019. ) Mary Burbank, the assistant dean of the college of education, said the program has decided to stick with CAEP and pursue accreditation under its new standards.
鈥淭o be shifting gears when we have established patterns for data collection鈥攊t鈥檚 not only inefficient, it leaves the potential for gaping holes in the way we鈥檙e looking for program effectiveness,鈥� she said.
And CAEP鈥檚 communication and support has evolved over the past several years as the organization has grown, she said. With the new standards, CAEP鈥檚 鈥渁wareness of the landscape of data collection鈥� seems to be 鈥渕uch more realistic,鈥� Burbank said.
Ultimately, she said, going through the accreditation process is an opportunity for teacher-educators to look systematically at how they鈥檙e preparing teachers.
鈥淭he intent of accreditation in my mind is always to improve programs and better prepare future teachers,鈥� Burbank said. 鈥淚t can be burdensome, [but] it鈥檚 necessary work. If the goal is to be reflective and better serve students and ultimately K-12 students, then that helps to manage the more technical pieces.鈥�
