CAEP Accreditation Cycle Clause Samples

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 5.1. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets the high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 5.2. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2, above, to merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. 5.3. An EPP seeking CAEP accreditation, either as an initial applicant or through a renewal process (generally referred to as continuous accreditation), must complete a self-study process leading to an EPP’s production of a Self-Study Report (SSR), a Formative Review, and Site Visit. An EPP may elect to participate in the review panel deliberations. Additional details of the CAEP accreditation process are included in Accreditation Council policy. 5.4. A Site Visit, carried out by a Site Visit Team, is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an ▇▇▇▇ evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. During a two- to three-day Site Visit, the Site Visit Team reviews evidence, data, and pedagogical artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, student work samples, videos) assembled by the EPP. The Site Visit Team also interviews EPP leaders, faculty, mentor teachers, candidates, students, P-12 administrators, and others relevant stakeholders. 5.5. The Mississippi Department of Education elects that CAEP’s reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State be carried out using Site Visit Teams composed as follows: The Mississippi Department of Education, through this agreement, allows site visit teams to be comprised of a Joint Review Team. The Joint Site Visit Team includes national site visitors appointed by CAEP and state site visitors appointed by the State. The State shall provide CAEP with its list of site visitors within any timelines established by CAEP in the Accreditation Council policy and handbook. CAEP-appointed members must make up more than 50 percent of the team. The team is led by a Site Visit Team chair appointed by CAEP. The State may appoint a vice- chair. Prior to assignment to any Site Visit Team, an individual must have successfully completed CAEP training for Site Visit Team members and must acknowledge understanding of an agreement to adhere to CAEP’s code of conduct, including with regard to confidentiality and conflicts of interest.

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 5.1. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP's high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 5.2. To merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. 5.3. A review, caiTied out by an Evaluation Team (which may also be referred to as a review team or site review team), is an essential paii of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP's evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with CAEP policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more Evaluation Team members participating using electronic means. 5.4. The State elects that CAEP's reviews ofEPPs in the State will be carried out using Evaluation Teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 5.1. The CAEP Accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP's high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 5.2. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2, above, to merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. 5.3. An EPP seeking CAEP Accreditation, either as an initial applicant or through a renewal process (generally referred to as continuous accreditation), must complete a self-study process leading to an EPP's production of a Self-Study Report (SSR), a tformative Review, and a Site Visit. An EPP may elect to participate as designated in CAEP policy in the review panel deliberations. Additional details of the CAEP Accreditation process are included in Accreditation Policy. 5.4. A site visit, carried out by a site team, is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP's evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with Accreditation Policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site visit. 5.5. The State elects that CAEP's reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State will be carried out using site teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 4.1. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP’s high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 4.2. To merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence, as determined by CAEP. 4.3. A review, carried out by an Evaluation Team (as described in Section 4.4 herein and which may also be referred to as a review team or site review team), is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP’s evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with CAEP Policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more Evaluation Team members participating using electronic means. 4.4. The State elects that CAEP’s reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State will be carried out using Evaluation Teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 5.1. The CAEP Accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP’s high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 5.2. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2, above, to merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. Any decision to revoke or deny CAEP accreditation will be made pursuant to CAEP Accreditation Council Policy and Procedures. 5.3. A site review, carried out by a review team, is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP’s evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with Accreditation Policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more review team members participating using electronic means. 5.4. The State elects that CAEP’s reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State will be carried out using review teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 4.1. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstr te that it meets CAEP's high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 4.2. To merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence, in addition to maintaining eligibility for CAEP Accreditation as defined in Accreditation Policy and Procedures, which, as detailed in Section 3 of this agreement, requires EPP adherence to State Criteria enumerated on CAEP's Maryland State Addendum forms 4.3. A Site Review, carried out by an Evaluation Team, is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP' s evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with CAEP policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more Evaluation Team members participating using electronic means. 4.4. The State elects that CAEP's reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State will be carried out using Evaluation Teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 4.1. The CAEP Accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP’s high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 4.2. A review, carried out by an Evaluation Team (which may also be referred to as a review team or site review team), is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP’s evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with CAEP policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more Evaluation Team members participating using electronic means. 4.3. The State elects that CAEP’s reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in the State will be carried out using review teams composed as follows:

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 5.1. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets the high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 5.2. To merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. For any EPP that fails to meet two or more CAEP standards, the TDOE will recommend denial of approval of the EPP to the SBE. Any decision to revoke or deny CAEP accreditation will be made pursuant to CAEP Accreditation Council policy.

CAEP Accreditation Cycle. The Parties understand and agree that: 4.1. All decisions for unit approval are within the sole authority of TSPC, and the decision to approve or not approve an EPP will be made independent of any CAEP determinations regarding its accreditation of the EPP. The parties agree that the rules and standards for unit and program approval in Oregon are subject to change at any time by the Oregon Legislature or TSPC, and such rules as amended would govern the decision for TSPC’s ultimate approval of an EPP. 4.2. The CAEP accreditation cycle involves an EPP in continuous improvement and requires an EPP to demonstrate that it meets CAEP’s high standards of quality required to improve P-12 student learning. 4.3. To merit full accreditation by CAEP, an EPP must meet all CAEP Standards on the basis of sufficient and accurate evidence. 4.4. TSPC may include the TSPC joint review team co-chair and/or the TSPC consultant in arranging and participating in Unit Pre-Visits. 4.5. A Site Review, carried out by an Evaluation Team, is an essential part of the accreditation process. Members of the assigned team investigate the quality of an EPP’s evidence, including the accuracy and consistency of the evidence provided in relation to CAEP Standards. In accordance with CAEP policy, CAEP may utilize a virtual site review or may have one or more Evaluation Team members participating using electronic means. 4.6. TSPC elects that CAEP’s reviews of ▇▇▇▇ in Oregon will be carried out using Evaluation Teams composed as follows: