By: Kermit Buckner, Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, East Carolina University

It is the middle of summer, I have two summer school courses to teach, a presentation to prepare, research to complete and two Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) off-site reviews to write. How did I get myself into this situation? There are times when I have asked myself this question over the past fifteen years as an NCATE and now a CAEP reviewer. The work is very demanding and the pay is terrible. Have I lost my mind?

When I ask this question, the answer always comes quickly to mind: I do it because peer review is a service to the profession I love and have been devoted to for my entire career. It is easy for me to see the web of connections in the education profession, looking back over a career that includes public school teaching, administration, work at a state department, at a national association and at a university. Those experiences have shown me how interdependent educators are regardless of their service as teachers, administrators, in other support areas or as educators who prepare PK-12 educators. That interdependence makes us accountable to each other and dependent on each other. Peer review teams are composed of all these parts of the profession.

As I work to prepare school leaders in my current position, very valuable tools in my work are the Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Standards for education leadership (ELCC) and the overarching CAEP Standards. When combined with the accreditation process, they provide educators with a roadmap for success in preparing all our candidates. Through accreditation grounded in commonly accepted standards, we have the guidance and feedback we need to continuously improve. We are a profession that monitors itself through our standards and accreditation process. CAEP is the linchpin in that process that connects all our disparate parts through the peer review process.

I make it a point to tell every preparation program I visit as a site evaluation team member or chair that accreditation is not something the team is doing to them, but something we are doing for each other. Educator preparation programs choose to meet the CAEP Standards. There are many different ways that can be done. The team’s job is not to tell anyone how to run programs, but to simply provide feedback on how well the provider has done in meeting our professional standards.

The Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) should design its programs to meet the needs of its candidates within the context of the state and the CAEP Standards. It should then be very clear and intentional in preparing its self study so that the site evaluation team can see how it has elected to meet the Standards. The team provides significant feedback to the EPP prior to the site review through its off-site report. The EPP should use that document to fill in all the blanks prior to the visit on campus. When that happens, the system works at its best.

My contribution to this important work is minor. I am but one tiny part of a massive effort on the part of educators at all levels. We all work together to create the standards, to conduct the reviews and hold each other accountable to rigorous expectations for those who serve our children and our future.

I am a site reviewer because it is how I pay my dues to my profession, how I help improve my profession, and how I continue to learn from others.