SPA Program Review Process

The following applies to programs that may have difficulty providing appropriate data for the program review.

• Dormant Programs: If no candidates are in the pipeline and no one has graduated from the program in the past three years, the program cannot submit a SPA report. The provider is advised to contact state about continuing to offer the program or archiving it in CAEP’s accreditation management system. When the dormant program is reactivated by admitting candidates, it will be subject to review in preparation for the upcoming CAEP site review.
• New Programs: An EPP offering a new program should prepare for the review process in respect to the CAEP accreditation timeline. New programs should be reported on the Annual Reports submitted to CAEP.
• Redesigned Programs: If a program is undergoing a major program redesign, it may request a delay of its submission of the program report. The delay request must be submitted to CAEP program review staff with a detailed explanation of the redesign and its timeline. A delay will be granted if the redesign requires major changes in the program and if the appropriate state agency agrees to the delay.
• Low-Enrollment Programs: A low enrollment program may have 10 or fewer candidates enrolled in the last three years taken together. Programs with low numbers are not automatically recused from being reviewed by a SPA. If a state requires programs to submit SPA reports or if a program chooses to submit a SPA report despite low enrollment, the program will be given a fair review. Reviewer decisions, in this case, will be based on the minimum required evidence provided by the program and the quality and alignment of the assessments used to meet SPA standards.

  A low-enrollment program may choose to seek waiver from the state to submit a SPA report. If the state grants the waiver, the program may choose not to submit a SPA report. In that case, the provider will need to update the program’s selection of program review option on CAEP’s accreditation management system using another option recognized by the state and offered by CAEP.

Discontinuing SPA review may lead to the loss of National Recognition status earned by the program upon the expiration of the recognition decision-through date.

If a SPA report is not submitted due to low numbers, the program needs to be reviewed using either the state review or the CAEP Evidence Review of Standard One (formerly Program Review with Feedback) option, as permitted by the state.

If a program has no enrollment at the time of the site review, the EPP needs to contact its state department to inform about the program’s status and to seek a waiver to conduct program review. In that case, the EPP will need to take the following actions:

• flag the program in AIMS,
• list it on the self-study report, and
• discuss its status for formative review.

Specialized Professional Associations and Their Role in CAEP Accreditation Specialized Professional Associations, often referred to as “SPAs,” are scientific and/or professional organizations representing professionals in a particular field of practice. These organizations can serve as advocacy units, bodies of research informing practice, as well as bearers of ethical practice and standards for the profession among many other roles. Some SPAs have entered into a partnership with CAEP to conduct reviews of specialty areas preparing pre-service candidates for their respective professions. Evidence from such reviews may be used by the provider* to address CAEP accreditation standards. These SPAs conduct their reviews using a CAEP-run and -owned information management system with the goal to provide National Recognition to a specialty licensure area, a status awarded by the SPA upon fulfilment of its standards and expectations.

Some SPAs have the status of programmatic accreditors and may be recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), or by the U.S. Secretary of Education, or by both. These accreditors operate independent of CAEP’s process and may or may not hold formal service agreements with CAEP. They too develop standards and conduct reviews that lead to specialty area accreditation upon fulfilment of their standards and expectations. A specialty licensure area that has received accreditation from such an accrediting agency may request to be exempted from CAEP review. For any EPP operating in a state with which CAEP has entered into a state partnership agreement, no such exemption will be granted unless the EPP first obtains a letter of support from the state. An EPP granted an exemption must disclose to its candidates, faculty, the public, and others that the specialty licensure area(s) are not included in the EPP’s accreditation by CAEP [CAEP Accreditation Policy II.3.01(a), p. 15]. Note that evidence from the accreditation reviews may also be used by the EPP to address CAEP accreditation standards if they choose to include such specialty licensure areas as part of CAEP review.

Finally, there are SPAs that are neither accrediting agencies, nor do they have a service agreement with CAEP. However, they have similar roles as the above SPA categories—representing professionals in their own field of practice, serving as advocacy units, bodies of research informing practice, as well as bearers of ethical practice and standards for the profession. CAEP encourages providers seeking CAEP accreditation to adopt these content-specific standards to develop instruments evaluating candidates’ knowledge and skills in the area(s) they are seeking state licensure or certification. EPPs adopting these specialty area standards conduct internal reviews to gather data, which are then presented through the self-study report submitted to CAEP. This process is referred to as the CAEP Evidence Review of Standard 1/A.1**.

* Educator Preparation Provider (also referred to as an EPP or simply a provider) is the entity responsible for the preparation of professionals in various licensure or certification areas to serve in a PreK through 12 school setting.

** The program review options available to EPPs are based on CAEP’s partnership agreement with the state in which they are located. States can allow three (3) options for review of individual licensure, certification, and/or endorsement programs, which include Specialty Professional Association (SPA) review with National Recognition, CAEP Evidence Review of Standard 1/A.1, and state review.

Download PDF format

An educator preparation provider (EPP) that has secured specialty area accreditation from a specialized accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or CHEA can choose to have any such accredited program(s) exempted from review by CAEP. In this circumstance, the program will not be recognized as accredited by CAEP and the EPP will not be required to report the number of completers in these programs in any annual report submitted to CAEP.

Should an EPP choose to have these programs reviewed during the CAEP accreditation process, they would be treated in the same manner as a program that has SPA recognition. If the EPP chooses to have these programs be part of the CAEP accreditation process and recognized by CAEP, evidence required to meet the CAEP Standards must be submitted for review, and completer numbers must be reported in the EPP Annual Report.

You may find a listing of the other accrediting agencies here.

You may find listings of CCHES-and USDE recognized accrediting organizations here and CHEA-recognized programmatic accrediting organizations here.

SPA Program Report Submission Timeline

Initial Reports
Program reports are accepted during two review cycles each year, Spring (due by March 15) and Fall (due by September 15). Program reports are due three years before the accreditation visit.

Revised/Response to Conditions Reports
Revised and Response to Conditions Reports are also accepted March 15 and September 15 each year. Please refer to the timeline provided in the original recognition report to ensure that you submit these reports within the required timeline.

To submit an Initial Review Report a program will request shells (templates used by programs to submit SPA Program Reports) through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS) using institutional login information. Instructions on how to request shells are provided here.

Shells may be requested as early as one year before the submission due date and no later than five days before the deadline. Although the templates for Initial Review Reports, Revised Reports, and Response to Conditions Reports appear to be similar, programs need to specify during the request that the shells requested are for initial review. The shells are named accordingly for reviewers to know of their nature.

1. Cover Sheet (Must be completed for Initial, Revised, and Response to Conditions reports): Complete the entire section: Numbers 1-16.
2. Sections I -V: Must be completed. Follow directions provided on the template for completing each section.
3. Section IV: Must be completed. Follow the directions provided in Section IV of the template to provide information on the key assessments that are being submitted. The data requirement for an Initial Review Report is a minimum of two cycles of most recent, consecutive application of the assessments used to meet SPA standards.
4. Section VI: Not required for Initial Review Reports.

A shell is a template used by programs to submit a SPA report.

Requesting Shell Instructions

In order to ensure that each program receives an individual decision, it is necessary for a shell (or template) to be created for each program in the PRS module of the Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS). 

Program shells can be linked to save the time and work it would take to copy information from one shell to another. Linking applies to programs in the same discipline (English, Elementary, etc.) that are at different levels (for example, undergraduate and post-baccalaureate), or are different in other ways—but that have identical assessments. If the assessments are not identical then individual program reports must be submitted for each program. This procedure will allow you to enter all of the information and text for these programs just one time. The system will then automatically copy the information into the other program report forms.

Download Instructions for Linking Shells

How to Plan for the Initial Review Report Submission:

To submit an Initial Review Report a program will request shells (templates used by programs to submit SPA Program Reports) through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS) using institutional login information. Instructions on how to request shells are provided here.

Shells may be requested as early as one year before the submission due date and no later than five days before the deadline. Although the templates for Initial Review Reports, Revised Reports, and Response to Conditions Reports appear to be similar, programs need to specify during the request that the shells requested are for initial review. The shells are named accordingly for reviewers to know of their nature.

How to Complete the Program Report Template/Form:

1. Cover Sheet (Must be completed for Initial, Revised, and Response to Conditions reports): Complete the entire section: Numbers 1-16.
2. Sections I -V: Must be completed. Follow directions provided on the template for completing each section.
3. Section IV: Must be completed. Follow the directions provided in Section IV of the template to provide information on the key assessments that are being submitted. The data requirement for an Initial Review Report is a minimum of two cycles of most recent, consecutive application of the assessments used to meet SPA standards.
4. Section VI: Not required for Initial Review Reports.

A Revised SPA Program Report (also referred to as a Revised Report) is submitted when a program receives a decision of either “Further Development Required” or “National Recognition with Probation” for their previous SPA report submission.

A Revised Report does not require the resubmission of all components of the original report. The Revised Report will usually focus on the submission of revised or new assessments that were developed based on the SPA’s guidance on the previous SPA Program Report. The goal is to provide improved evidence for standards previously found unmet by reviewers.

How to Plan for the Revised Report Submission:

To submit Revised Reports, a program will request shells (templates used by programs to submit SPA Program Reports) through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS) using institutional login information. Instructions on how to request shells are provided here.

Shells may be requested as early as one year before the submission due date and no later than five days before the deadline. Although the templates for Initial Review Reports and Revised Reports appear to be similar, programs need to specify during the request that the shells requested are for “Revised Reports.” The shells are named accordingly for reviewers to know of their nature.

In responding to the SPA’s decision of “Further Development Required” or “National Recognition with Probation,” the program should refer to the comments for unmet standards noted in Part B (Status of Meeting SPA Standards), as well as to comments in Part E (Areas for Consideration) of the prior SPA Recognition Report (the report that the program receives notifying the SPA’s decision on National Recognition). Part C (Evaluation of Program Report Evidence) and Part D (Evaluation of the Use of Assessment Results) of the report may also provide information on the aspects of the original report that are deficient, lacking, or require clarification.

How to Complete the Program Report Template/Form:

1. Cover Sheet (must be completed for Initial, Revised, and Response to Conditions Reports): Complete the entire section: Numbers 1-16.
2. Sections I and II: Not required for Revised Reports unless there is a replacement of one or more of the assessment(s) originally submitted in the Initial Review Report, or there is new faculty information since the submission of the previous report.
3. Section III: Not required for Revised Reports unless a new assessment replaces one submitted in the Initial Review Report to meet a SPA standard.
4. Section IV: Required for Revised Reports. Follow the directions provided in Section IV of the template to provide information on the key assessments that are being resubmitted. The data requirement for a Response to Conditions Report is based on a minimum of one cycle of data; these data are collected from the revised assessment(s) based on SPA feedback received in the previous SPA Recognition Report.
5. Section V: Must be completed. Describe how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve candidate performance and the program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and student learning.
6. Section VI: Must be completed. Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the conditions and concerns raised in the original SPA Recognition Report. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that have been made

A Response to Conditions SPA Program Report (“Response to Conditions Report”) is submitted when a program receives a decision of “National Recognition with Conditions” for their previous SPA report submission.

A Response to Conditions Report does not require the resubmission of all components of the original report. The Response to Conditions Report will usually focus on the submission of revised or new assessments that were developed based on the SPA’s guidance on the previous SPA Program Report. The goal is to provide improved evidence for standards previously found unmet by reviewers.

How to Plan for the Response to Conditions Report Submission:

To submit Response to Conditions Reports, a program will request shells (templates used by programs to submit SPA Program Reports) through CAEP’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS) using institutional login information. Instructions on how to request shells are provided here.

Shells may be requested as early as one year before the submission due date and no later than five days before the deadline. Programs need to specify during the request that the shells requested are for “Response to Conditions.” The shells are named accordingly for reviewers to know of their nature.

In responding to the SPA’s decision of “National Recognition with Conditions,” the program should focus on the conditions specified in Part G (Decisions) of the prior SPA Recognition Report (report that the program receives notifying the SPA’s decision on National Recognition). If a program can meet the conditions listed in Part G through evidence presented in the Response to Conditions Report, it should be eligible for National Recognition.

Comments provided in Part B (Status of Meeting SPA Standards), Part C (Evaluation of Program Report Evidence), Part D (Evaluation of the Use of Assessment Results), and Part E (Areas for Consideration) of the prior SPA Recognition Report may also provide valuable information on ways to address the conditions stated in Part G.

How to Complete the Program Report Template/Form:

1. Cover Sheet (must be completed for Initial, Revised, and Response to Conditions Reports): Complete the entire section: Numbers 1-16.
2. Sections I and II: Not required for Response to Conditions Reports unless there is a replacement of one or more of the assessment(s) originally submitted in the Initial Review Report, or there is new faculty information since the submission of the previous report.
3. Section III: Not required for Response to Conditions Reports unless a new assessment replaces one submitted in the Initial Review Report to meet a SPA standard.
4. Section IV: Required for Response to Conditions Reports. Follow the directions provided in Section IV of the template to provide information on the key assessments that are being resubmitted. The data requirement for a Response to Conditions Report is based on a minimum of one cycle of data; these data are collected from the revised assessment(s) based on SPA feedback received in the previous SPA Recognition Report.
5. Section V: Required for Response to Conditions Reports. Describe how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve candidate performance and the program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions; and student learning.
6. Section VI: Required for Response to Conditions Reports. Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the conditions and concerns raised in the original SPA Recognition Report. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that have been made.

Program review is an essential component of the overall accreditation process which provides evidence that candidates have strong foundation of content and pedagogical knowledge.

Programs must use these guidelines if they choose to use course grades as one of their assessments. Course grades can be used for Assessment #1 (if there is no state licensure test), Assessment #2, or one of the optional assessments.

Required documentation for programs using course grades:

1. Courses must be required for all candidates in the program; elective courses may not be used as evidence.
2. Faculty may choose which courses will be used in this assessment. For example, they could select all courses in an academic major, or they could select a cluster of courses that address a specific domain, or they could select only one course, etc.
3. The documentation of course grades-based evidence must include curriculum requirements, including the course numbers of required courses. (a) For baccalaureate programs, documentation must be consistent with course listings provided in the Program of Study submitted in Section I of the program report. (b) If course grades are used as an assessment for a graduate level program that relies on coursework that may have been taken at another institution, the assessment must include the advising sheet that is used by the program to determine the sufficiency of courses taken by a candidate at another institution. The advising sheet must include specific information on required coursework and remediation required for deficiencies in the content acquirement of admitted candidates.
4. The grade evidence must be accompanied by the institution’s grade policy or definitions of grades.
5. Grade data must be disaggregated by program level (e.g. baccalaureate and post baccalaureate), grade level (e.g. middle grade and secondary), or licensure category (e.g.history or social studies).

Format for Submission of Grades as a Course-Based Content Assessment

Use the format below when submitting course grades as a course-based content assessment.

(For this specific assessment, these instructions take the place of the general instructions for submitting assessments cited at the beginning of Section IV.)

 Part 1

Description of the assessment. Provide a brief description of the courses and a rationale for the selection of this particular set of courses. Provide a rationale for how these courses align with specific SPA standards as well as an analysis of grade data included in the submission. (Limit to two pages).

[NOTE: If course grades are used as an assessment for a graduate level program that relies on coursework that may have been taken at another institution, the report must include theadvising sheet that is used by the program to determine the sufficiency of courses taken by a candidate at another institution.]

Part 2

Alignment with SPA standards. Include a matrix that shows alignment of courses with specific SPA standard. Faculty can choose one of the following two examples—one is organized by course, the other is organized by SPA standard. Brief course descriptions should be included if the course title does not identify the course content.

Example: Alignment Matrix organized by SPA Standard 

Part 3

Grade Policy and Minimum Expectation. The program must submit grading policies that are used by the institution or program and the minimum expectation for candidate grades (e.g., all candidates must achieve a C or better in all selected coursework).

Part 4

Data table(s). Data tables must provide, at minimum, the grade distributions and mean course grades for candidates in the selected courses. NOTE: The “n” in the data table/s for each year or semester must be relatively consistent with the numbers of candidates and completers reported in Section I. Large inconsistencies between the two data sets must be explained in a note included with the data table(s).

Example 1. Candidates’ Grades in Required Mathematics Courses Secondary Math Education Candidates Baccalaureate Program

*A = 4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0

Example 2. Mean GPA in Science Major Courses for Candidates admitted to MAT Program Secondary Science Education Candidates

*A = 4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0

A transcript analysis process may be used as Assessment #2 for Initial Licensure/Post-Baccalaureate programs or for documentation for grades for other programs. The provider needs to provide sufficient information so that reviewers can determine if the course work is aligned with the discipline-specific standards. However, the requirements for documentation cannot be too burdensome or require documentation that cannot be provided.

Documentation Requirements:

1. Describe the transcript analysis process including when it occurs, who does the analysis, etc.
2. Describe any policies used by the program in evaluating the transcript including the following:
   – Currency of preparation: Is there a limit to when course work must have been completed?
   – Other related degrees: How are degrees in related fields addressed?
   – Minimum grade requirements: What earned grade (e.g., C or better) is required for the program?
   – Alignment clarification: What process is used for making decisions if course titles are not clearly aligned with the standards?
3. Describe the process used to ensure that candidates who do not meet the requirements are required to remediate deficiencies.
4. Provide the form used to complete the transcript analysis. If not clear, provide a separate matrix that delineates the alignment between the transcript analysis form and the discipline specific content standards.
5. Provide data on the number of candidates for whom a transcript analysis was done, how many candidates required remediation in each discipline, and number of candidates, if any, who received waivers from the process.

Please view: SPA Standards & Report Forms