Quality and Strategic Evaluation

5.1 The provider’s quality assurance system is comprised of multiple measures that can monitor candidate progress, completer achievements, and provider operational effectiveness. Evidence demonstrates that the provider satisfies all CAEP standards.

5.2 The provider’s quality assurance system relies on relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable measures, and produces empirical evidence that interpretations of data are valid and consistent.

Continuous Improvement

5.3 REQUIRED COMPONENT The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.

5.4 REQUIRED COMPONENT Measures of completer impact, including available outcome data on P-12 student growth, are summarized, externally benchmarked, analyzed, shared widely, and acted upon in decision-making related to programs, resource allocation, and future direction.

5.5 The provider assures that appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, school and community partners, and others defined by the provider, are involved in program evaluation, improvement, and identification of models of excellence.


Continuous improvement: An organizational process through which data are collected on all aspects of a provider’s activities; analyzed to determine patterns, trends, and progress; and used to define changes for the purpose of improving the quality of programs, faculty, candidates, policies, procedures, and practices of educator preparation.



Effective organizations use evidence-based quality assurance systems and data in a process of continuous improvement. These systems and data-based continuous improvement are essential foundational requirements for effective implementation of any of the three CAEP accreditation pathways an educator preparation provider (EPP) chooses—whether it is the Inquiry Brief, Continuous Improvement, or Transformational Initiative pathway.

A robust quality assurance system ensures continuous improvement by relying on a variety of measures, establishing performance benchmarks for those measures (with reference to external standards where possible), seeking the views of all relevant stakeholders, sharing evidence widely with both internal and external audiences, and using results to improve policies and practices in consultation with partners and stakeholders.[i]

The quality of an EPP is measured by the abilities of its completers to have a positive impact on P-12 student learning and development.[ii] Program quality and improvement are determined, in part, by characteristics of candidates that the provider recruits to the field; the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions that candidates bring to and acquire during the program; the relationships between the provider and the P-12 schools in which candidates receive clinical training; and subsequent evidence of completers’ impact on P-12 student learning and development in schools where they ultimately teach.[iii] To be accredited, a preparation program must meet standards on each of these dimensions and demonstrate success in its own continuous improvement efforts.

Effective quality assurance systems function through a clearly articulated and effective process for defining and assuring quality outcomes. Reasons for the selection of each measure and the establishment of performance benchmarks for individual and program performance, including external points of comparison, are made clear. Providers show evidence of the credibility and dependability of the data that inform their quality assurance systems, as well as evidence of ongoing investigation into the quality of evidence and the validity of their interpretations of that evidence. Providers must present empirical evidence of each measure’s psychometric and statistical soundness (reliability, validity, and fairness).[iv]

Continuous improvement systems enable programs quickly to develop and test prospective improvements, deploy what is learned throughout the organization, and add to the profession’s knowledge base and repertoire of practice.[v] CAEP should encourage providers to develop new models for evaluating and scaling up effective solutions. Research and development in the accreditation framework can deepen the knowledge of existing best practices and provide models of emerging innovations to transform educator preparation.[vi]

[i] Ruben, B. R. (2010).Excellence in higher education guide. An integrated approach to assessment, planning, and improvement in colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: National Association of College and University Business Officers. Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. (2011). 2011-2012 Education criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
[ii] The use of “development” is based on InTASC’s Standard #1: Learner Development. The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.
[iii] NRC. (2010). Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & Lepage, P. (2005). In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world. What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1- 39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 645-735). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NCATE. (2010).
[iv] Ewell, P. (2012). Recent trends and practices in accreditation: Implications for the development of standards for CAEP. Washington, DC: CAEP.
[v] Langley G.L., Nolan K.M., Nolan T.W., Norman C.L. & Provost L.P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[vi] Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L.M. & Grunow, A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education, Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Essay retrieved from



Standard 5: 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 5 and its components,
• List the kinds of evidence that CAEP recommends for each of the components for Standard 5, and
• Describe how the standard and its components will be evaluated by CAEP reviewers.

Download the Slides 
Download the Handout