The following paragraphs move through the SSR outline and elaborate on expectations for each section.

Overview of Provider

The purpose of the Overview is to provide sufficient information to aid the reviewers in understanding the context of the provider.  This section is not meant to "sell" the provider. Descriptive information should be limited to what is essential for understanding the background against which the provider is operating. Evidence in the Overview can be tagged to Standard 5 as appropriate. These evidences fall into three broad categories.

Provider context and unique characteristics

  • Age, history, context, and distinguishing features
  • Summary of requirements, demographics about the host institution (e.g., IHE) and the provider (e.g., institutional and provider enrollment, number and ethnic composition of students, completers and faculty)
  • Copies of or links to AIMS tables specific to provider characteristics and program characteristics
Provider’s organizational structure
  • Institutional/organizational structure
  • Copy of or link to AIMS tables specific to programs by site of operation
  • The provider’s place in the institution or organization
Provider’s shared values and beliefs
  • The conceptual framework and vision, mission, and goals of the provider
  • The local, regional, or national  market for completer employment and political contexts that shape the program


  • Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

Summary Statement:  In Standard 1, the provider makes the case for candidate competencies prior to exit from the program through data from common assessments.  It argues that candidates can effectively engage with all P-12 students and are competent in the four InTASC categories—the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility and that they are prepared in their specialty/licensure area.

The provider demonstrates that candidates will be able to apply the necessary knowledge and skills for P-12 success in their own professional practice, including use of research and evidence, a commitment to challenging “college and career ready” level standards for all their students, and appropriate use of technology in instruction.  Standard 1 is also concerned with the role of the provider in candidate development.  Explain what the data say about candidate performance and what steps were taken based on the data.

Candidates’ abilities to teach diverse students effectively, adapting their repertoire of skills as needed, is an overarching theme for Standard 1.

  • Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships and Practice
Summary statement:  Standard 2 is the place to argue that the provider has partnerships with P-12 schools that are beneficial to both parties.  Explain how collaborative partnerships are conducted, monitored, and evaluated, and how this evidence led to changes in programs.  Provide examples of beneficial collaboration and how the provider and schools work together (e.g., the process for co-selection of mentor (co-op) teachers and university supervisors). What associations does the provider find between the particular aspects of its preparation experiences (such as breadth, depth, diversity, coherence, and duration)?

  • Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity
Summary Statement: In Standard 3, the provider demonstrates that it recruits and selects candidates with potential to have a positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development, and that its actions contribute to a more diverse and academically able educator workforce.

During their programs, the provider continues to prepare and monitor candidates to ensure that completers will be effective teachers.  It monitors the progress of candidates during preparation, ensuring that there is growth in aspects of preparation that is essential for P-12 student learning.

Similar to Standard 1, evidence for Standard 3 focuses on pre-service preparation.  Include only what is unique to Standard 3 and not addressed by performance evidence in Standard 1.  To demonstrate the link between preparation and effective teaching, the provider may find it necessary to refer to what is included in Standard 4, but it is not necessary to repeat the Standard 4 documentation in Standard 3.
  • Standard 4: Program Impact 
[NOTE: Under CAEP Board policy, all components of Standard 4 must be met for full accreditation.]

Summary Statement: In Standard 4, the provider demonstrates the pre-service preparation covered in Standard 3 and Standard 1 equips service teachers to have a positive impact on P-12 student learning and development for all students.  Provide additional evidence, beyond what has been reported in the provider’s annual reports, that completers are having positive impact on P-12 student learning. This evidence should complement the information included in the provider’s Annual Report.  Effective teaching is a fundamental goal of the CAEP Standards; therefore the provider must meet this standard to be accredited.

  • Standard 5: Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement
[NOTE: Under CAEP Board policy, components 5.3 and 5.4 must be met for full accreditation]

Summary statement: In Standards 1 through 4, the provider provides information about the quality of the evidence used in the self-study report and demonstrates at least some of the capabilities of the provider’s quality assurance system.   Standard 5 describes how that information, cumulatively, is coherent and relevant for the provider’s program improvement and accreditation needs.  The provider addresses how the validity and reliability were established for their assessments and data and also discusses other indicators of quality (use of multiple assessments, and relevant, verifiable, representative, and actionable measures).  Components 5.3 and 5.4 focus on the use of data for continuous improvement of the provider, which is essential to the advancement of the field of education.  The provider should include data trends from the Candidate and Program Measures in its Annual Report when addressing component 5.4.

Areas for Improvement for Previous Review

Areas for improvement cited under NCATE or TEAC legacy reviews must be addressed until they are removed.  Evidence submitted in support of CAEP standards may be referenced and/or additional evidence uploaded.  NCATE and CAEP Standards align as follows:

NCATE Standard

2013 CAEP Standard

Standard 1

Standard 1

Standard 2

Standard 5

Standard 3

Standard 2

Standard 4

Cross-cutting theme of diversity

NCATE Standards 5 and 6 do not align with CAEP Standards. Additional documentation on areas for improvement under these standards would need to be submitted.

D.  Cross-cutting themes of Diversity and Technology

“Diversity” and “technology” are cross-cutting themes identified in the CAEP Standards as important to integrate into preparation programs.  The provider’s statement about these themes and the inclusion of narratives about them in the self-study report are common to all self-study reports under all three pathways.