Alert

Components

Components

Plan for Recruitment of Diverse Candidates who Meet Employment Needs

3.1    The provider presents plans and goals to recruit and support completion of high-quality candidates from a broad range of backgrounds and diverse populations to accomplish their mission. The admitted pool of candidates reflects the diversity of America’s P-12 students. The provider demonstrates efforts to know and address community, state, national, regional, or local needs for hard-to-staff schools and shortage fields, currently, STEM, English-language learning, and students with disabilities.

Candidates Demonstrate Academic Achievement

3.2 REQUIRED COMPONENT: The provider meets CAEP minimum criteria or the state’s minimum criteria for academic achievement, whichever are higher, and gathers disaggregated data on the enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year. 

The CAEP minimum criteria are a grade point average of 3.0 and a group average performance on nationally normed assessments or substantially equivalent state-normed assessments of mathematical, reading, and writing achievement in the top 50 percent of those assessed. An EPP may develop and use a valid and reliable substantially equivalent alternative assessment of academic achievement. The 50th percentile standard for writing will be implemented in 2021. 

Starting in academic year 2016-2017, the CAEP minimum criteria apply to the group average of enrolled candidates whose preparation begins during an academic year. The provider determines whether the CAEP minimum criteria will be measured (1) at admissions, OR (2) at some other time prior to candidate completion. 

In all cases, EPPs must demonstrate academic quality for the group average of each year’s enrolled candidates. In addition, EPPs must continuously monitor disaggregated evidence of academic quality for each branch campus (if any), mode of delivery, and individual preparation programs, identifying differences, trends, and patterns that should be addressed under component 3.1, Plan for recruitment of diverse candidates who meet employment needs. 

CAEP will work with states and providers to designate, and will periodically publish, appropriate “top 50 percent” proficiency scores on a range of nationally or state normed assessments and other substantially equivalent academic achievement measures, with advice from an expert panel.

Alternative arrangements for meeting the purposes of this component will be approved only under special circumstances and in collaboration with one or more states. The CAEP President will report to the Board and the public annually on actions taken under this provision.

Additional Selectivity Factors

3.3 Educator preparation providers establish and monitor attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability that candidates must demonstrate at admissions and during the program. The provider selects criteria, describes the measures used and evidence of the reliability and validity of those measures, and reports data that show how the academic and non-academic factors predict candidate performance in the program and effective teaching.

Selectivity During Preparation

3.4    The provider creates criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’ advancement from admissions through completion. All candidates demonstrate the ability to teach to college- and career-ready standards. Providers present multiple forms of evidence to indicate candidates’ developing content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and the integration of technology in all of these domains.[ii]

Selection At Completion

3.5    Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate has reached a high standard for content knowledge in the fields where certification is sought and can teach effectively with positive impacts on P-12 student learning and development.

3.6          Before the provider recommends any completing candidate for licensure or certification, it documents that the candidate understands the expectations of the profession, including codes of ethics, professional standards of practice, and relevant laws and policies. CAEP monitors the development of measures that assess candidates’ success and revises standards in light of new results.

Glossary

Cohort: A group of candidates admitted at the same time, e.g., a class entering in a fall semester.

Group average: The GPA and standardized test scores are averaged for all members of a cohort or class of admitted candidates. Averaging does not require that every candidate meet the specified score. Thus, there may be a range of candidates’ grades and scores on standardized tests.

STEM: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics


[i] Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

[ii] National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2011). American’s high school graduates: Results of the 2009 NAEP high school transcript study. NCES 20111462. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=20111462. The study shows high school grade point averages as 3.0 for “overall,” 2.79 for “core academic” subjects, and 3.14 for “other academic” subjects. SAT “top third” performance is about 1120, and ACT is about 22.8 for English and 23.0 for math. GRE top third on the new scale is about 154.6 for verbal and 154 for quantitative. The minimum criteria may change as standards for admission to teacher education programs become more competitive; the criteria should reflect high standards used by states and recommended by research.

Rationale

Rationale

Educator preparation providers (EPP) have a critical responsibility to ensure the quality of their candidates. This responsibility continues from purposeful recruitment that helps fulfill the provider’s mission to admissions selectivity that builds an able and diverse pool of candidates, through monitoring of candidate progress and providing necessary support, to demonstrating that candidates are proficient at completion and that they are selected for employment opportunities that are available in areas served by the provider. The integration of recruitment and selectivity as EPP responsibilities to ensure quality is emphasized in a 2010 National Research Council report:

The quality of new teachers entering the field depends not only on the quality of the preparation they receive, but also on the capacity of preparation programs to attract and select academically able people who have the potential to be effective teachers. Attracting able, high-quality candidates to teaching is a critical goal.[i]

The majority of American educators are white, middle class, and female.[ii] The makeup of the nation’s teacher workforce has not kept up with changing student demographics. At the national level, students of color make up more than 40 percent of the public school population, while teachers of color are only 17 percent of the teaching force.[iii] The mismatch has consequences. Dee; Goldhaber, and Hansen; and Hanushek and colleagues[iv] found that student achievement is positively impacted by a racial/ethnicity match between teachers and students.

While recruitment of talented minority candidates is a time- and labor-intensive process,[v] “teachers of color and culturally competent teachers must be actively recruited and supported.”[vi] Recruitment can both increase the quality of selected candidates and offset potentially deleterious effects on diversity from more selective criteria—either at admissions or throughout a program.[vii] “Successful programs recruit minority teachers with a high likelihood of being effective in the classroom” and “concentrate on finding candidates with a core set of competencies that will translate to success in the classroom.”[viii] There is evidence that providers of alternative pathways to teaching have been more successful in attracting non-white candidates. Feistritzer reports alternative provider cohorts that are 30 percent non-white, compared with 13 percent in traditional programs.[ix]

The 2010 NCATE panel on clinical partnerships advocated attention to employment needs as a way to secure greater alignment between the teacher market and areas of teacher preparation.[x] The U.S. Department of Education regularly releases lists of teacher shortages by both content-area specialization and state.[xi] Some states also publish supply-and-demand trends and forecasts and other information on market needs. These lists could assist EPPs in shaping their program offerings and in setting recruitment goals.

There is a broad public consensus that providers should attract and select able candidates who will become effective teachers. The 2011 Gallup Phi Delta Kappan education poll[xii] reported that 76 percent of the U.S. adult public agreed that “high-achieving” high school students should be recruited to become teachers. Another example is found in a 2012 AFT report on teacher preparation, recommending setting GPA requirements at 3.0, SATs at 1100 and ACT scores at 24.0 in order to “attract academically capable students with authentic commitment to work with children.”[xiii]

Researchers such as Ball, Rowan, and Hill; Floden, Wayne, and Young[xiv] conclude that academic quality, especially in verbal ability and math knowledge, impacts teacher effectiveness. A study for McKinsey and Company[xv] found that high-performing countries had a rigorous selection process similar to that of medical schools. Whitehurst[xvi] suggests that educator preparation providers should be much more selective in terms of their candidates’ cognitive abilities. When looking at the cost of teacher selection, Levin[xvii] found “that recruiting and retaining teachers with higher verbal scores is five-to-ten times as effective per dollar of teacher expenditure in raising achievement scores of students as the strategy of obtaining teachers with more experience.” Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, and Staiger concluded that “teachers’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills...have a moderately large and statistically significant relationship with student and teacher outcomes, particularly with student test scores.”[xviii]

Programs do not all start at the same place in their history of recruiting an academically strong and/or diverse candidate pool. Some programs will need to set goals and move successively toward achieving them. As better performance assessments are developed and as various licensure tests are shown to be predictors of teacher performance and/or student learning and development, CAEP may be able to put more emphasis on exit criteria rather than on entrance criteria. Irrespective of changes CAEP may make, this does not reduce the program’s responsibility to recruit a diverse candidate pool that mirrors the demography of the student population served.

There is strong support from the professional community that qualities outside of academic ability are associated with teacher effectiveness. These include “grit,” the ability to work with parents, the ability to motivate, communication skills, focus, purpose, and leadership, among others. Duckworth, et al, found “that the achievement of difficult goals entails not only talent but also the sustained and focused application of talent over time.”[xix] A Teach for America (TFA) study concluded that a teacher’s academic achievement, leadership experience, and perseverance are associated with student gains in math, while leadership experience and commitment to the TFA mission were associated with gains in English.[xx] Danielson asserts that “teacher learning becomes more active through experimentation and inquiry, as well as through writing, dialogue, and questioning.”[xxi] In addition, teacher evaluations involve “observations of classroom teaching, which can engage teachers in those activities known to promote learning, namely, self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation.” These “other” attributes, dispositions and abilities lend themselves to provider innovation. Some providers might emphasize certain attributes because of the employment field or market for which they are preparing teachers.

Research has not empirically established a particular set of non-academic qualities that teachers should possess. There are numerous studies that list different characteristics, sometimes referring to similar characteristics by different labels. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a clear measure for these non-academic qualities, although a few of them have scales and other measures that have been developed. The CAEP Commission recognizes the ongoing development of this knowledge base and recommends that CAEP revise criteria as evidence emerges. The Commission recognizes the InTASC standards’ set of dispositions as a promising area of research.

Several pieces of research, including Ball’s work in mathematics education,[xxii] the MET study on components of teaching, [xxiii] and skills approaches such as Lemov‘s Teach Like a Champion,[xxiv] assert there are important critical pedagogical strategies that develop over time. Henry,[xxv] Noell and Burns,[xxvi] and Whitehurst [xxvii] all found that, in general, teachers became more effective as they gained experience. Both research, as synthesized by the National Research Council,[xxviii] and professional consensus, as represented by the Council of Chief State School Officers’ InTASC standards,[xxix] indicate that the development of effective teaching is a process.

There are various sets of criteria and standards for effective teaching and teacher education, many including performance tasks [xxx] and artifacts created by the candidate.[xxxi] These standards, like those of the Commission, have a central focus on P-12 outcomes. Student learning and development should be a criterion for selecting candidates for advancement throughout preparation. The evidence indicators that appear in the Appendix can be used to monitor and guide candidates’ growth during a program. Standard 4 is built around the ultimate impact that program completers have when they are actually employed in the classroom or other educator positions.

Many professional efforts to define standards for teaching (e.g., InTASC; NCTQ, and observational measures covered in the Measures of Effective Teaching project) recommend that candidates know and practice ethics and standards of professional practice, as described in these national standards (such as those in InTASC standard 9 and 9(o)). The Commission recommends that CAEP strongly encourage additional research to define professional practices of P-12 educators and how these practices, beliefs, and attitudes relate to student learning and development. (See also CAEP component 1.4 on equity responsibilities.)

However, many measures of both academic and non-academic factors associated with high-quality teaching and learning need to be studied for reliability, validity, and fairness. CAEP should encourage development and research related to these measures. It would be shortsighted to specify particular metrics narrowly because of the now fast-evolving interest in, insistence on, and development of new and much stronger preparation assessments, observational measures, student surveys, and descriptive metrics. Instead, CAEP should ask that providers make a case that the data used in decision-making are valid, reliable, and fair. States and localities are developing their own systems of monitoring, and both providers and CAEP should obtain data from these systems, where available, to use as valuable external indicators for continuous improvement.

CAEP should monitor the impact of these new admission standards. The Commission recommends that CAEP develop an expert advisory committee to monitor developments in assessment, outcomes research, and other evidence that will influence the CAEP standards. Such a committee would make recommendations on the evolution of the standards and assessments used in program improvement and accreditation.


[i] NRC (2010), 181.

[ii] Morrell, J. (2010). Teacher preparation and diversity: When American preservice teachers aren’t white and middle class. Online Submission. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/257521/ _Teacher preparation_and_diversity_when_American_preservice_teachers_aren’t_white_and_ middle_class.

[iii] Boser, U. (2011). Teacher diversity matters: A state-by-state analysis of teachers of color. Center For American Progress. Retrieved from http:// www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/ report/2011/ 11/09/10657/ teacher-diversity- matters/

[iv] Dee, T. 2004. The Race Connection: Are Teachers More Effective with Students who Share their Ethnicity? Education Next.4.2:52-59.
Teachers, Race and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment. NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.41 Working Papers, August 2001.
Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Race, gender, and teacher testing: How informative a tool is teacher licensure testing?. American Educational Research Journal47(1), 218-251. Retrieved from http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/1/218.full.pdf
Hanushek, E., Kain,J.,O'Brian, D., and S. Rivikin. 2005. The Market for Teacher Quality. Working Paper 11154. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154

[v] Bireda, S. & Chait, R. (2011). Increasing teacher diversity: Strategies to improve the teacher workforce. Center For American Progress. Retrieved from: http://www.americaprogress.org

[vi] National Collaboration on Diversity in the Teaching Force. (2004). Assessment of diversity in America’s teaching force: A call to action,; p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.ate1.org/pubs/ uploads/diversityreport.pdf

[vii] National Collaboration on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004) and Bireda and Chait (2011).

[viii] Bireda and Chait (2011), 30.

[ix] Feistritzer, C.E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011. National Center for Education Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncei. com/Profile_Teachers_US_2011.pdf

[x] NCATE (2010).

[xi] Teacher Shortage Areas Nationwide Listing: 1990-1991 through 2012-2013. (April 2012). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html

[xii] Bushaw, W., Lopez, L. (2011). Betting on teachers: The 43rd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan 93(1), 8-26.

[xiii] American Federation of Teachers [AFT ]. (2012), Raising the bar: Aligning and elevating teacher preparation and the education profession. Washington, D. C.: Author.

[xiv] Ball, D., Hill, H., Rowan, B. (2005). Effects of Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal. 42(2), 371-406.
Floden,R. & M. Maniketti. 2005. Research on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and Sciences and in the Foundations of Education. In Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Eds. Cochran-Smith, M. & K. Zeichner. (Meta-analysis of previous research.)
Wayne, A., and P. Young. (2003). Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A Review. Review of Educational Research 73(1). 89-122. (Meta-analysis of previous research.)

[xv] Auguste, B., Kihn, P., & Miller, M. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching: An international and market research-based perspective. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http:// mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap/

[xvi] Whitehurst, G. (2002). Strengthen teacher quality: Research on teacher preparationand professional development. White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers. U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/ preparing teachers conference/whitehurst.html NRC (2010).

[xvii] Levin, H. M. (1970). A cost-effectiveness analysis of teacher selection. Journal of Human Resources 5(1), 24-33.

[xviii] Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education Finance and Policy, 6(1), 43-74.

[xix] Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6),1087- 1101. Also see Haberman, M. (2000). What makes a teacher education program relevant preparation for teaching diverse students in urban poverty schools? (The Milwaukee Teacher Education Center Model). and Harding, H. (2012). Teach for America: Leading for change Educational Leadership, 69(8), 58-61.

[xx] Dobbie, W. (2011). Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from Teach for America. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dobbie/ research/TeacherCharacteristics_July 2011.pdf

[xxi] Danielson, C. (2009). A framework for learning to teach. Educational Leadership, 66. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational- leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/A-Framework- for-Learning-to-Teach.aspx

[xxii] Ball, D. (2008). Mathematical Knowledge for Teacher and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction: An Exploratory Study. Cognition and Instruction. 26(4), 430-511.

[xxiii] Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/met- framing-paper.pdf

[xxiv] Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College (K-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[xxv] Henry, T., et al. (2012). The effects of experience and attrition for novice high-school science and mathematics teachers. Science, 335, 1118-1121. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/ content/335/6072/1118.full.pdf

[xxvi] Noell, G., & Burns, J. (2006). Value-added assessment of teacher preparation: An illustration of emerging technology. Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 57, 37-50. Retrieved from http:// jte.sagepub.com/content/57/1/ 37.full.pdf+html

[xxvii] Whitehurst (2002).

[xxviii] NRC (2010) CCSSO (2011).

[xxix] CCSSO (2011).

[xxx] Danielson (2009).

[xxxi] See, for example, Rodgers, C. & Raider-Roth, M. (2006), Presence in teaching. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 12(3) 265-287. See also Barker, L. & Borko, H. (2011). Conclusion: Presence and the art of improvisational teaching. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (279-293). New York: Cambridge University Press. See also, Joint project of Stanford University and AACTE to develop a preservice education “teacher performance assessment.” See description at this URL: http://edtpa.aacte.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/using-edTPA.pdf.

Resources

Resources

Webinar
Standard 3: Its language, suggested evidence, and questions to address

Goal of this webinar: To provide updated information on addressing Standard 2 and its components in the CAEP self-study report.

Objectives: Participants will be able to:
-Identify the key points of Standard 3 and its components,
-List the kinds of evidence that CAEP recommends for each of the components for Standard 3, and
-Describe how the standard and its components will be evaluated by CAEP reviewers.
-Outline when an Area for Improvement (AFI) or stipulation might be assigned.

Download the Slides
Download the Handout

CAEP regularly receives questions from the field on CAEP Standard 3. We have compiled a list of actual frequently asked questions and provided answers for each one. The answers have been shaped by input from stakeholders and education professionals across the field.

Standard 3 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

This resource is intended to provide clarity. Should you have any further questions about Standard 3, please send them to Emerson Elliott, Director of Special Projects at CAEP.

Status Update on CAEP Standard 3 (June 21, 2016): CAEP Board Clarifies, Refines CAEP Standard 3

At its June 9-10, 2016 biannual meeting, the CAEP Board of Directors adopted language to clarify and refine the academic achievement component of CAEP’s Standard on Candidate Quality. CAEP Component 3.2 – as amended – takes effect July 1, 2016 and will be used by EPPs seeking CAEP Accreditation for either initial or advanced programs, and submitting self-study reports in fall 2017.

Read Demonstrating Academic Achievement: CAEP Board Clarifies, Refines CAEP Standard 3 for more information.

Evidence Option: The Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET)

The Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET) is an example of a state assessment that can be used as evidence for component 3.2. A recent Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) study showed a strong and positive relationship between ACT (nationally normed) and OGET (state normed) tests. CAEP accepts the use of the state assessment as evidence for compliance with component 3.2.