When CAEP certifies that a program has met its accreditation standards, CAEP lists the program as accredited and stands behind its claims and quality. Although reviews for accreditation purposes take place only at specified times, usually on a seven‑year cycle, the procedures and processes that serve accreditation are an ongoing feature of your program. You will describe them when you address Standard 5 in your self‑study report. Standard 5 will present the quality assurance system you have designed to give you confidence that your program is always meeting the CAEP Standards. With a quality assurance system continually protecting your program’s standards, the scheduling of each site review is an opportunity for your program to take stock of how your quality assurance system is working by conducting an in‑depth review that will be helpful to you and others. As you think about accreditation, it is useful to keep in mind that accreditation serves two different, sometimes conflicting, functions.

One of the two important functions of accreditation is external accountability, i.e., to provide persuasive evidence to the public that the graduates of your program qualify to perform the professional services you claim for them. External accountability provides assurance through your evidence that your program accomplishes the mission you claim for it. Intended primarily for outside observers, including accreditors, it also confirms that the mission of your program is one that an outside observer can judge to be necessary and appropriate.

The other important function of accreditation is internal accountability, i.e., to provide persuasive evidence for you that your program is working as you planned, and that your design is producing the consequences you intended for it. Internal accountability fosters a climate of critical self‑inquiry, allowing you to continually improve the quality of your program. It requires assiduous attention to evidence, creative discovery of new sources of evidence, and adhering to the conventions of sound scientific observation.

Both external and internal accountability are cornerstones of good accreditation practice. In a general way, for illustration purposes, one could say that CAEP Standard 5 focuses on internal accountability while also strengthening claims of external accountability. CAEP Standards 1-4 require elements of internal accountability to provide credibility of the evidence presented while making a strong case of external accountability. All five CAEP Standards thus require attention both to external and internal accountability.

Evidence

There are deep narrative traditions in education that focus on normative arguments, i.e., the ideal condition you seek. An example of a normative statement is that teachers should be caring, competent, and professional. Another time‑honored tradition in education is logical argument. An example of a logical argument is (1) if a pupil cannot learn a subject in the absence of the subject matter, and (2) if the teacher does not know the subject matter; therefore, (3) the pupil cannot learn the subject from the teacher. Although normative and logical arguments can assist in securing evidence, by themselves they do not constitute evidence that proves the value of a program.

The most persuasive form of evidence is empirical, i.e., based on measurements that can be repeated yielding the same results, confirmed by multiple observers, using research designs and methods that meet the established conventions of science. CAEP relies heavily on empirical evidence to make judgements about whether to award accreditation. You will find many examples of empirical evidence in CAEP’s handbooks and other resources. Empirical evidence can be quantitative, for example, in determining the percentage of candidates who pass an examination. It can also be qualitative, as, for example, in evaluating the quality of a portfolio of a candidate’s work. In fact, multiple methods that converge on a common conclusion usually produce the most compelling evidence.

When considering whether to use a measurement as evidence in your self‑study report, you must first establish its validity. Validity is a technical term used to establish whether the trait or characteristic you are measuring is indeed what you say it is. Once you have determined that a measure is valid, you must then establish its reliability. Reliability is a technical term used to establish that if you measure a trait or characteristic, you will get more‑or‑less the same result the next time or any time you measure it again.

Although obtaining valid and reliable measurements may seem straightforward, these features can prove to be difficult to establish, even though they are essential. Validity and reliability continue to be subjects of interest to researchers and are constantly being revised. You may want to review your familiarity with these topics as you begin your assembly of evidence in support of the CAEP Standards. Review panels, charged by CAEP with determining whether the evidence you provide in support of your program meets CAEP Standards for accreditation, often look closely at whether the validity and reliability of the evidence you present are sound.

Consider an upcoming site review as a gift rather than an obligation. It is your opportunity to showcase the commitment and creativity you have invested in your program. Of course, the site reviewers will have been trained to determine whether the empirical evidence you produce is sufficient to support adherence to CAEP’s five standards. But the site reviewers will also have been trained to look for outstanding programs and to spot useful innovations. For example, you may have been able to create an unusual empirical measure that persuasively demonstrates adherence to a standard, or you may have devised a novel way to prepare candidates or completers to meet a standard. The site reviewers will approach your program with a willingness to let you show them how your program works and the evidence you can produce to support it.

Your self‑study report will begin with a context‑setting snapshot around which you will organize the report, and which also will include much required descriptive information. Every EPP is embedded in a unique local context, often requiring adaptation that might be uncommon to site reviewers but is necessary for your program. One strategy you might employ at this stage of writing your report would be to highlight some feature of your program that your evidence shows you accomplish especially well, or some guiding vision or philosophy special to your program, around which it coheres. Then you could proceed to foreshadow how your self‑study report will highlight the distinctive aspects of your program while providing empirical evidence in support of the required CAEP Standards. This is just one way of thinking about how to organize your report.

An accreditation site review does not require you to submit to a cookie‑cutter approach to meet CAEP Standards. The standards are guideposts for basic elements that every accredited EPP must display, but there are multiple creative ways that persuasive empirical evidence can be put forth to show that a standard has been met. The opening of your self‑study report is the place where you can describe what is special about your program and how the way you have designed your program allows it to meet the required standards. The context you provide, unique to your program, will help the CAEP site reviewers focus their work and ask insightful questions as they seek to evaluate your evidence during their visit.

About Daniel Fallon:
Daniel Fallon retired in 2008 from Carnegie Corporation of New York, where he supervised grant making as Chair of the Education Division. Fallon is Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at the University of Maryland at College Park, where he also served as Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. He has published widely on learning and motivation, on academic public policy, and on comparative higher education. He is Chair of the Board of Directors of the American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation