Many states use an accreditation process in addition to, or in lieu of, a state-run program approval process. Accreditation may be conducted at the institution-level or program-level and looks across a range of areas, including an evaluation of processes to provide candidates with clinical practice experiences. Two national accreditation organizations presently operate in the realm of teacher prep: the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP). CAEP and AAQEP each have their own set of standards to which they hold prep programs accountable. Both organizations publish detailed information about these standards and the types of evidence programs must produce to demonstrate their adherence.
NCTQ completed a crosswalk of the CAEP and AAQEP standards and sources of evidence related to NCTQ’s Framework for Clinical Practice. While both organizations address some components of the framework, neither approaches comprehensive coverage of the components of clinical practice backed by research and supported by the field, as outlined in the Clinical Practice Framework:
- Focus Area 1: Strong district–prep program partnerships: CAEP and AAQEP both describe the important role district partners play in clinical practice, but only the former addresses establishing a governance structure for these partnerships, and neither set of standards provide expectations related to creating structures for frequent check-ins.
- Focus Area 2: Student teacher–cooperating teacher matches: CAEP and AAQEP both lack sufficient emphasis on the matching process. AAQEP’s standards are particularly notable for their lack of explicit attention on the pivotal role of the cooperating teacher. Neither organization’s standards set clear criteria for instructionally effective cooperating teachers, nor do they address stipends for cooperating teachers or student teachers or supports for aspiring teachers of color.
- Focus Area 3: Cooperating teacher and program supervisor training: CAEP’s standards address “support” for “clinical educators,” which they define to include both cooperating teachers and program supervisors. However, details about training content, calibration on observation instruments, and setting clear roles and responsibilities are listed among optional evidence that programs can use to demonstrate they are meeting the standard. AAQEP’s standards do not explicitly address any component of this focus area.
- Focus Area 4: Student teacher placement sites: While both organization’s standards set expectations that signal the importance of providing candidates clinical practice opportunities in a range of settings, both sets of standards miss opportunities to address aspects of student teacher placements supported by research and the field. Neither set of standards call for aligning placements to candidates’ likely teaching positions or selecting placement sites with characteristics that research suggests lead to the best outcomes for candidates (e.g., schools with greater contributions to student learning, lower teacher turnover, more diversity, and more positive school climates).
- Focus Area 5: Student teacher skill development: CAEP and AAQEP both have criteria related to building candidates’ content and pedagogical knowledge, but they miss key components. For example, several components under this focus area, such as providing candidates with feedback based on frequent observations using a strong observation instrument and building candidates’ ability to provide grade-level work grounded in high-quality instructional materials, are not explicitly addressed by either organization’s standards.
- Focus Area 6: Data and outcomes: CAEP and AAQEP both have standards related to using data to track outcomes and drive continuous improvement, including data sources such as hiring metrics and feedback from completers, cooperating teachers, and other placement site personnel.
NCTQ’s crosswalk revealed that even if the accreditation standards fully address all components of the framework, the open-ended nature of the evidence that programs are able to submit does not guarantee a high-quality clinical practice system. Many categories of evidence are too broad or vague and are presented without clear criteria related to quality. For example, furnishing a list of partner districts does not signal the quality of those partnerships. Similarly, producing a tracking system for clinical practice placements does not necessarily signify a program’s commitment to providing candidates with experiences in a range of settings.
It is important for prep programs, states, and other stakeholders to scrutinize clinical practice systems using the full framework. While accreditation may signal that some aspects of the framework are in place, it cannot be considered a marker of full adherence to research- and field-backed clinical practice, as outlined in the Clinical Practice Framework.