Click here to register.

DAY 1 — ASSESSMENT, DATA & PARTNERSHIPS

11:00–12:50pm Workshop 1 (NOVICE): Designing and Validating Key Assessments that Produce Meaningful Data

• Standards: R1, R3 | RA1, RA3
• Description: This workshop introduces foundational principles for designing strong assessments aligned to CAEP expectations. Participants will examine rubric quality, fundamental validity and reliability concepts, and practical strategies for small-n programs in both Initial and Advanced contexts.

1:00–2:50pm Workshop 2 (NOVICE): Using and Documenting Data and Evidence for Improvement

• Standards: R1–R5 | RA1–RA5
• Description: Participants will learn to organize, display, and interpret data using CAEP-aligned dashboards and templates, with an emphasis on translating results into documented improvement actions that support continuous improvement.

3:00–4:50pm Workshop 3 (Experienced): Thinking Like a Reviewer: Calibration, Reliability, and Evidence Interpretation

• Standards: R1, R3 | RA1, RA3
• Description: This advanced session focuses on how CAEP reviewers evaluate assessment evidence. Participants will engage in calibration exercises, examine reliability arguments, and analyze common red flags that weaken assessment claims.

DAY 2 — PARTNERSHIPS, IMPACT & SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

11:00–12:50 Workshop 4 (Novice): Evaluating Clinical Partnerships and Candidate Support Systems

• Standards: R2 | RA2
• Description: This session examines how reviewers evaluate evidence of co-constructed clinical partnerships and candidate support systems. Participants will analyze mentor effectiveness tools and partnership documentation for both the Initial and Advanced programs.

1:00–2:50pm Workshop 5 (Experienced): Understanding Program Impact and Completer Effectiveness

• Standards: R4 | RA4
• Description: Participants will learn what constitutes credible evidence of program impact, including P–12 outcomes, professional practice indicators, and survey data. Special attention is given to small-n strategies and avoiding over-claims.

3:00–4:50pm Workshop 6 (ALL): Operationalizing Continuous Improvement and Quality Assurance Systems (QAS)

• Standards: R5 | RA5
• Description: This capstone session focuses on building sustainable Quality Assurance Systems that integrate evidence across standards and support ongoing improvement for both Initial and Advanced programs.

Professional Educator Standards Board Association (PESBA) Winter Symposium

General Session: The Future of Teacher Preparation: A Conversation with CAEP and AAQEP

New Orleans, Louisiana

January 27, 2026

On behalf of CAEP President Chris Koch, thank you, Lynn, for your kind invitation for CAEP to participate in this discussion. While I lamented about being thrown under the bus by serving on this panel to substitute Chris as he has a prior engagement, I am tremendously honored that Lynn thinks that I am adequate enough to participate. In our preparatory conversation, Lynn made it very clear to me that we are not here to debate the merit of CAEP and AAQEP educator preparation standards. Rather, we are here to share our thoughts on the big picture of America’s education and with that, we could get some sense of the implication it has on educator preparation. I, therefore, will share my thoughts on that principle. I wish to acknowledge the contribution to my remarks by my fellow CAEP board members, Professor Anne Tapp Jaska of Saginaw Valley State University, current Chair for the Board of Directors at AACTE, and Professor Stacey Edmonson Victor, Dean of Education at Sam Houston State University and the incoming Chair of the Board for AACTE.

The challenges facing our educator preparation are the results of how America organizes and delivers its education. The United States has the vast volume of research demonstrating what matter in education and the quality standards required for professional educators. I would like to argue that we have not made significant progress because, as a nation, there is not a coherent educational system that is supported by the society.

In 1983, a federal government commissioned and extremely controversial report A Nation at Risk sounded the alarm that “Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purpose of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them” (p. 13-14). It further warned that “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war… We have squandered the gains in student achievement… Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (p. 13).

The report recommended that high school graduation requirements include contents in five areas: English, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer science; adopt high expectations and “rigorous and measurable” (p. 27) standards for academic performance and college admissions; use effectively time at school; improve teaching and “make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession” (p. 38); and hold educational leaders and citizens accountable for the operation and fiscal support of school.

This report, in my view, observed the symptoms of the weakness of our educational system. However, it failed to provide the diagnose that social, economic, and community factors influence every aspect of the quality of schooling and the learning outcomes of students by pinning on the improvement of education only on state and local education authorities.

Over the last 43 years since the publication of this report, we have seen all sorts of reform efforts such as the 1986 Education Enhancement Act of Connecticut, that raises teacher salaries, reviews and approves evaluation and incentive plans, raises teacher certification standards, establishes alternate route to certification; and mandates school districts minimum fiscal expenditures. States have also implemented standardized tests in reading, mathematics, and science at various grades. Since 1969, the United States has administered the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to gauge what students know in subjects of reading, writing, mathematics, and science. In 1988, Congress established a board to oversee NAEP. The United States has also participated in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) created by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that test the knowledge of 15-year-old in reading, mathematics, and science. In 1999, the U. S. Department of Education established Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program to strengthen the preparation of and support for teachers. The 2002 federal law of No Child Left Behind, while deeply flawed in its implementation, was the first national attempt to mandate educational standards in testing and hold failing schools accountable—again an effort only focused on schools without the understanding that it takes a nation to provide quality education. There has been a proliferation of alternate route to teacher certification programs, some are funded by private equities, to address the worsening of teacher shortages.

Financially, in addition to state and local support, the federal government has invested through grants, including Title II-A; Supporting Effective Instruction, the largest in teacher quality, with around $2.1 billion allocated annually to states and districts for professional development, reducing class sizes, and supporting new teachers; Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP), a competitive program for teacher preparation, it has seen significant funding shifts; for instance, around $70 million annually; and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED), another competitive grant for innovative teacher training, with approximately $80 million annually. That grant program has now been discontinued prompting legal action by the AACTE.

The results?

The United States has never achieved top ranking in the PISA. While ranked between sixth and 10th in reading and science, it achieved the historically worst mathematic score in the latest assessment in 2022 and kept its ranking in the low 20th.

On the NAEP tests, among the nine-year-old students4, the average reading scores declined from 221 in 2012 to 215 in 2022; the average mathematics score declined from 244 in 2012 to 234 in 2022. Among the 13-year-old students5, the average reading scores declined from 263 in 2012 to 256 in 2023; and the average mathematics scores declined from 285 in 2012 to 271 in 2023. Among the eighth-grade students, their overall average science score between 2009 and 2024 remained the same at 150 out of the total score at 300 (141 is at basic level, 170 is proficient, and 215 is advanced).

David Scharfenberg from The Boston Globe cited a report from the University of California-San Diego that “the number of incoming freshmen with below-high-school-level math skills increased nearly 30-fold between 2020 and 2025… Fully 70 percent of those students fell below middle school levels,” causing him to claim that “young people are getting dumber.”7

Over the years, many at one point highly lauded initiatives to improve teacher quality and student learning outcomes have quietly phased out by schools, universities, and states. Among them, there are teacher induction programs such as the Connecticut Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST) requirements; EdTPA assessments for teacher competencies; and Teachers for the New Era grant sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York; The alternate route to teacher certification program completers have significantly lower retention rates than those who completed traditional programs.8 Many of them participated in such program as a resume building experience and have gone on to bigger pastures in law and politics. Despite a school age “demographic cliff” of 13% drop in high school graduates between 2026 and 20419, there are still the same or even worse teacher shortages. Many initiatives from various grant programs were not institutionalized, causing them to end once the funding ended. Most recently, Massachusetts voters eliminated standardized test for high school graduation requirement.10 And there is certainly no mention of No Child Left Behind anywhere given its fundamental ignorance of how quality of education is affected by many other social factors as mentioned before. It seems to me that whenever the work gets harder, standards raised higher, or fiscal commitment intensifies, we back off from these efforts.

For me, the question is not whether young people are getting dumber. It should be whether, as a nation, the society has failed our young people. It seems that we have been walking in place in the last four decades. As a nation, all those education reform efforts have not moved us forward, and in student performance, we may even say we have moved backward. My observation in the field is that we, the Americans, simply cannot agree with each other on what is education and how to go about it. Further, all the arguments about standards fail to stress that standards are only supposed to be the floor, not the ceiling. They only mean the knowledge and competencies all students must have at a certain developmental stage in order to become a critically thinking, rights and community-conscientious and responsible participant in the democratic society. Beyond that, schools and students could pursue anything in their wildest dreams.

Why can’t we do that?

The 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines the limits of the role of the federal government and reserves the rights to the states and the people. Education has always been a matter for the states. In education, it is almost like we function like 50 separate countries, each has its own laws and regulations government how the state’s system of education is financed and operated. The fact you all are sitting here representing different standards board is a testament to this reality.

Over the years, we have seen drastically different educational outcomes. Sometimes, even in our own state, the local education authorities, governed by voter elected school boards, may have very different views in curricular materials, instructional practices, and educator standards. Financially, it is our property tax revenue that funds the local schools. Guy Chazan11 of The Financial Times reported on the “K-shaped economy”—“a split-screen picture where asset-owning classes have become ever wealthier while lower-income households have seen their living standards stagnate or decline” (P. 5). He cited examples of two cities in one county in Connecticut: the average gross income per tax return in Greenwich was $687,000 in 2023, and about half an hour drive, it was $70,500 in Bridgeport. Now imagine the resources for schools and the quality of learning for students at schools in these two towns. And then imagine again the quality of life when the majority of students from these two towns become adults.

Colleges and universities, along with policy makers have long debated and disagreed on what education means in the states, and how educators are prepared and supported. Arthur Levine famously called educator preparation programs as “unruly and disordered” and they are viewed as “cash cows” by institutions of higher education. The National Council on Teacher Quality have clashed with states and preparation programs on data, policies and pedagogical approaches. A few years ago, this cartoon struck me as it illustrated the tasks facing today’s teachers in America12. See Figure 4. The American Teacher.

While A Nation at Risk sounded the alarm for urgency, CAEP’s mission is not to endorse policy narratives but to operationalize that same urgency through evidence-based professional standards — translating rhetoric into measurable preparation quality. As organizations setting standards on educator preparation, CAEP and AAQEP have had quite an interesting history to say the least. For decades, there was the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and followed by Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC). The two organizations decided to merge as CAEP. The philosophical idea is to establish a single set of standards for educator preparation. After a few messy years of “marriage” trying to achieve that goal, a decision was made some to “divorce” CAEP and formed AAQEP. This all took place before I served on the CAEP Board of Directors and I am not here to litigate the wisdom of the merger and the eventual separation. Rather, I just want to illustrate that as a field, we cannot agree on what takes to prepare educators and how we can ascertain if programs are doing their jobs of preparing educators. I don’t think there is another profession with such divergent views of what it means to be a professional.

The Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education has been criticized by many. However, hardly anyone talks about the fact that the agency, which did not become a cabinet-level department, until 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, has never had any constitutional authority to regulate the nation’s system of education13. It has used grant funds, financial aid funds as carrots to persuade states, schools, and institutions of higher education to operate. It has investigated civil right violations. But in all, it has never had the “stick” to govern. I cannot think of another country in the world which operates education the same manner.

Professor David Labaree from Stanford University delivered two lectures in Japan in 2019. According to his diagnose, the American public education system is “radically decentralized, with some 14,000 school districts responsible for setting policy and running schools” and it is “hard to find any structure of public education in the world that is more independent of national control.” For him, “the American system of education is…radically unequal, organizationally fragmented and instructionally mediocre” leading to “the chronically mediocre academic performance of its students.”

Do we really not know what needs to be done? The question is not that we don’t know. The issue is whether the voters and the law makers of the nation have the political will to do the right thing. Take Mississippi as an example. While many states are “backing off accountability and lowering proficiency standards,” “Mississippi has gone from 49th in the country on national tests in 2013, to a top 10 state for fourth graders learning to read — even as test scores have fallen almost everywhere else.”

Do we really not know what needs to be done? The question is not that we don’t know. The issue is whether the voters and the law makers of the nation have the political will to do the right thing. Take Mississippi as an example. While many states are “backing off accountability and lowering proficiency standards,” “Mississippi has gone from 49th in the country on national tests in 2013, to a top 10 state for fourth graders learning to read — even as test scores have fallen almost everywhere else.”15 Mississippi succeeded so far by raising academic standards, ensuring instructions are based on the science of reading, and measuring “how student’s progress toward proficiency. Schools get credit if students show improvement—and double credit for the improvement of students in the bottom 25 percent.” The state took the leadership in telling schools what to do. So this begs the concluding question that I have: Do we have the will to do the hard work? For those who try to make the learning process “fun,” I would ask when are we going to point out the obvious: learning is also hard and challenging? If educator preparation programs are not leading the nation to do so, then who else will? This is why coherent minimum standards, evidence-based instruction, and sustained societal commitment matter.

Lynn graciously shared with me some of the questions we are to discuss today. They made me realize that they are the exact same questions raised by A Nation at Risk 43 years ago, and the exact same questions raised when I began my career in state K-12 education policies 25 years ago. How can we avoid being same song, next verse? Only through difficult conversations and the hard work needed, we can forge real solutions. Without fundamental changes in our nation’s education system with the leaderships of educator preparation programs and the standard boards, in 40 years from now, perhaps, our future educational leaders will be asking the same questions while the system continues to fail our future generations.

Sample Questions and Answers:

How do each of you envision the landscape of teacher preparation evolving over the next five to ten years?

More apprenticeships/residency models used, more AI, more non-traditional enrollees into teacher preparation and more alternative providers. More de-professionalizing.

• What opportunities do you see for innovation in traditional and non-traditional preparation models?

Certainly the utilization of AI and residency and apprenticeship models. More hybrid programs (traditional and online).

• How do you anticipate evidence and data expectations evolving, especially in a competency-based future?

CAEP has already seen Competency based models utilized among our accredited providers. As with any assessment model there are good implementations and terrible ones. Data and Assessments plans need to be modeled for appropriate data collection. Just saying 100% are profcicent at the end in not acceptable. Assessments need to be placed to measure growth and progress to proficiency but not just at the end.

• How do you see technology, including AI, shaping teacher preparation in the next decade?

It will continue to be an expansive tool for providers used with clinical experiences, data simulations and ways in which we haven’t even been able to envision. The use of smart Avatars in simulation, reduction of time to create instructional resources, Adaptive environments for tutoring and support.

• What trends are you observing in effective and sustainable clinical partnerships?

Residency and apprenticeship models are increasing since the pandemic. co-teaching and teaching pods

• How can accrediting bodies balance national consistency with local and state-specific needs?

We do this through every aspect of the accreditation process. Our standards allow for both consistency and flexibility. CAEP partners with a majority of states to ensure that state and local needs are addressed. In a number of those partnerships state personnel sit on CAEP reviews. (we refer to those as joint reviews). Further, our multi-tiered review process ensures that consistency among providers is maintained.

• What practices have you seen nationally that signal where high-quality preparation is headed?

A concerning trend continues to be efforts to fill vacancies are, in some cases, putting inadequately prepared individuals in front of K-12 students.

Flexibility with apprenticeships and residency is a more promising trend which offers flexibility in obtaining critical clinical experience.

• As more states adopt teacher apprenticeship pathways, how do you see accreditation frameworks adapting to evaluate competency-based progress rather than traditional credit-based structures?

If designed appropriately, competency based frameworks can be quite effective. The Scope and Sequence of curriculum and the corresponding assessment framework need to be thoughtfully planned. We have had the idea of computer-adaptive testing for a long time, this is the same mindset used in designing the clinical experiences. CAEP accreditation is agile enough to include these types of assessments. We have a partnership with the Competency based group CBEN and AACTE to create tools and resources for EPP to design high quality competency based programs and provide robust data for Accreditation.

• What role should accrediting bodies play in defining or validating quality standards for non-IHE entities that become state approved EPP while serving simultaneously as an instruction provider under the US Department of Labor?

Having high standards and holding all providers to those standards. Pressuring states to require alt cert providers meet accreditation standards. Collecting data on pathways (fed or states) so there is clear evidence of what pathways are successful. Holding Alt certs accountable for candidate outcomes.

• How can accreditation systems support partnerships between LEAs, nonprofits, and institutions of higher education within apprenticeship pathways? 

CAEP has an entire component about partnerships (R2.1). Many of our EPPs are working in a new space for partnership. The look and feel of those partnerships has evolved (since COVID) and the traditional LEA/EPP partnerships have expanded and grown to include others, but the core idea is still there. There must be communication and a unified approach to the path forward. All the voices have to be part of the approach.

• Do you see apprenticeships influencing long-term redesigns of clinical practice expectations?

Continuous Improvement is part of the mission of accreditation. EPPS and accreditors have to review and discuss expectations and new ways of approaching teacher prep. We have to keep up with the times. That does not mean lowering standards but rather defining and clarifying high expectations for Clinical experience and creating opportunities to meet high standards in new ways. We have clear high expectations for the outcomes, we have to be open about the inputs to get there.

• How might accreditation review teams evaluate programs where candidates are employees first and students second, with learning occurring on the job?

At least for CAEP, All candidates are CANDIDATES regardless of if they are in residency or apprenticeship models. The EPP is still responsible for providing support and resources to all. They are not considered completers for us. Apprenticeships are not teacher of record. Many states do allow TOR status and emergency licenses, but generally they are different types of models. Again, the EPP is responsible for those candidates enrolled in their programs. There is still an assessment and support plan for those candidates.

Download Full Article: PESBA Remarks 01-2026

I am excited about the progress that is being made in Mississippi; however, one point the article did not touch upon was educator preparation. The University of Mississippi is one of fourteen educator preparation providers in the state which have the responsibility for preparing tomorrow’s classroom teachers. All of the state’s educator preparation providers work together through the Mississippi chapter of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, sharing information, data, and best practices on how to better prepare our future teachers.

During the growth in the performance of Mississippi’s K-12 students the state of Mississippi has required the providers in the state to be accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). The CAEP Standards are the Gold Standard for educator preparation, rigorous benchmarks that we must meet in order to be able to train and prepare our next generation of teachers. CAEP Accreditation provides us with the opportunity to reflect on our practices and improve upon them. I truly believe that this requirement for all educator preparation providers to be CAEP accredited has contributed to the success we are now seeing at the K-12 level.  Our Mississippi providers are successful, with nearly half being singled out for national recognition earning the prestigious Murray Award, including Alcorn State University, Belhaven University, Delta State University, Mississippi State University, and The University of Mississippi.

As education preparation providers, we are committed to ensuring that prospective teaching candidates possess the skills to assess and plan instruction using a range of strategies to effectively teach and support all students. We  guide new educators in recognizing areas for growth and implementing improvements, thereby preparing them to successfully manage their own classrooms.

CAEP Accreditation requires continuous improvement. We use data to understand the effectiveness of the graduates of our programs in student learning. We work with local districts surveying school administrators in their satisfaction with our graduates and collect data to understand their effectiveness in teaching K-12 students. We use that data to make improvements to our programs, so we continue to produce high quality educators.

An important piece of CAEP Accreditation is clinical experience or student teaching. This is essential in the preparation of tomorrow’s teachers. They learn valuable skills by working with seasoned educators. We work with local schools to ensure they have a variety of differing teaching experiences. Student teaching allows our candidates the ability to experience problems and to address them under supervision of an experienced teacher. It also prepares them to manage their own classroom in the future and to work with unique student populations. The clinical experience and partnerships with local districts are an important part of preparing future teachers and also retaining them in the classroom after they have graduated.

The work we do at the state’s colleges and schools of education is both challenging and rewarding. As Dean of the School of Education at the University of Mississippi I believe the CAEP standards and the CAEP accreditation process are an important part of the success we have seen in our state’s K-12 system over the past 10 years. My colleagues at the Mississippi chapter of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and I are committed to developing the best teachers for our Mississippi K-12 students.

Dr. David Rock

Dean, School of Education

The University of Mississippi

Mississippi Miracle and Educator Preparation Rock Letter

HIGHLIGHTS

Amendments to Accreditation Policy and Procedures to Take Effect January 1

December 2025 

This document highlights amendments approved by the Board during the December 2025 Board of Directors meeting to Accreditation Policy and Procedures, following a public comment period and Accreditation Council adoption in October 2025. The amended Accreditation Policy and Procedures will take effect January 1, 2026.

Amendments address the following:

• Changes to Part III, Policy III.1.02 clarify eligibility criteria for an EPP seeking Initial Accreditation and provide further details and transparency on the application process – changes make clear that an EPP’s Part 1 application submission must include any information needed to demonstrate eligibility.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.1.03 detail CAEP’s review of an EPP’s Part 1 application. These changes establish that the review leads to either acceptance or denial of the Part 1 application.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.1.04 extend the timeline for completion of Part 2 to 365 days from the date work on Part 2 commences.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.1.05 clarify the CAEP process for determining whether an EPP meets the requirements for Approved Applicant status – applicant EPPs must restart an application if the EPP does not obtain Approved Applicant status within 365 days of the date on which it submits a Part 2 application.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.2.05 align policy with current practice relating to the Formative Feedback Report and the AIMS 2.0 Formative Feedback Report template – the Formative Feedback Report is to include the Evaluation Team’s preliminary articulation of any Areas for Improvement (AFIs) and Stipulations.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.2.08 require the Evaluation Team to confirm that the EPP provided evidence and information which can be used to resolve or revise any preliminary AFIs and Stipulations prior to making any recommendations for Accreditation Council consideration.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.2.09 require the Site Review Report to include any deficiencies in the EPP’s compliance with Standards in the form of proposed Areas for Improvement (AFIs) and Stipulations – these changes reflect current practice and the AIMS 2.0 Site Review Report template.
• Changes to Part III, Policy III.2.13 require the Initial Review Panel to confirm or modify recommendations made by the Evaluation Team regarding Areas for Improvement (AFIs) and Stipulations.
• Changes to Part V, Policy V.3.01 remove the option to allow EPP’s Annual Accreditation Reports to be reviewed by volunteer Annual Report Reviewers and the EPP Transparency, Accountability, and Improvement Committee (ETAIC) of the Accreditation Council – all such reports are to be reviewed and evaluated by CAEP staff.
• Changes to Part V, Policy V.5.01 require that EPPs seeking a good cause extension (GCE) of more than one (1) year must provide states with notice of intent to request a GCE and an opportunity to ask questions or object to the request – EPPs will no longer be required to provide CAEP with written evidence of state agency support.
• Changes to Part VI, Policy VI.2.01 update requirements regarding the application, qualification, and eligibility of CAEP Evaluators for assignment – individuals applying to CAEP are to disclose involvement in any ongoing investigation and interrogation of the individual’s professional or personal conduct; and individuals will be required to disclose any civil or criminal convictions.
• Changes to Part VI, Policy VI.2.02 repeal policy providing for the election and reelection of Reviewers.
• Changes to Part VI, Policy VI.2.03 relating to training of Evaluators include using successful completion of training and requiring those Evaluators assigned to review an international EPP to engage in training to address competence to engage in international accreditation activities.
• Changes to Part VII, Policy VII.1.02 and Policy VII.1.03 eliminate reference to legacy-accredited EPPs, NCATE Standards, and TEAC quality principles, as this is no longer needed because all EPPs that previously held NCATE or TEAC accreditation have either obtained CAEP Accreditation, withdrawn, or allowed their accreditation under CAEP to lapse – there are no longer any NCATE or TEAC-accredited EPPs transitioning to CAEP accreditation.
• Changes to Part VII, Policy VII.4.01 clarify committee composition and committee chair and vice-chair responsibilities for each of the Accreditation Council’s standing committees.

You can find the updated Accreditation Policy and Procedures on the Accreditation Resources Pages.

CAEP – Accreditation Policy and Procedures Final – Jan 2026

544 programs from 43 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates now meeting CAEP’s rigorous, national accreditation standards to better prepare tomorrow’s teachers

WASHINGTON – Today, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation announced that 36 providers from 22 states earned accreditation for their educator preparation programs (EPPs). These providers join those previously accredited in promoting excellence in educator preparation, which currently totals 544 CAEP accredited providers

The CAEP Accreditation Council held its Fall 2025 review in October, during which 36 providers were approved under the rigorous, nationally recognized CAEP Teacher Preparation Standards.

“These providers meet high standards so that their students receive an education that prepares them to succeed in a diverse range of classrooms after they graduate,” said CAEP President Dr. Christopher A. Koch. “Seeking CAEP Accreditation is a significant commitment on the part of an educator preparation provider.”

CAEP is a nationally recognized accrediting body for educator preparation. Accreditation is a nongovernmental activity based on peer review that serves the dual functions of assuring quality and promoting improvement.

Educator preparation providers seeking accreditation must pass peer review of the CAEP standards, which are based on two principles:

1. Solid evidence that the provider’s graduates are competent and caring educators, and
2. Solid evidence that the provider’s educator staff have the capacity to create a culture of evidence and use it to maintain and enhance the quality of the professional programs they offer.

If a program fails to meet one of the five standards, it is placed on probation for two years. Probation may be lifted in two years if a program provides evidence that it meets the standard. Including EPPs approved in Fall 2025 receiving CAEP accreditation the total number of CAEP-accredited providers is 544. These schools span across 43 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. 

Fall Class of 2025:

Baldwin Wallace University – Ohio

Ball State University – Indiana

Bethel College – Kansas

Black Hills State University – South Dakota

Davis & Elkins College – West Virginia

Governors State University – Illinois

Hastings College – Nebraska

Hiram College – Ohio

Lake Erie College – Ohio

Lake Superior State University – Michigan

Louisiana State University in Shreveport – Louisiana

Louisiana Tech University – Louisiana

Manhattanville University – New York

MidAmerica Nazarene University – Kansas

Midwestern State University – Texas

Montana State University-Billings – Montana

North Greenville University – South Carolina

Northern Kentucky University – Kentucky

Oklahoma Wesleyan University – Oklahoma

Pathway to Practice NC- North Carolina

Roanoke College – Virginia

Sacred Heart University -Connecticut

Schoolcraft College – Michigan

Southern University and A&M College -Louisiana

Spring Arbor University – Michigan

Tennessee Technological University – Tennessee

The College of William and Mary – Virginia

The College of Wooster – Ohio

University of Bridgeport – Connecticut

University of Missouri-Kansas City – Missouri

University of North Florida – Florida

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University – Virginia

Washburn University – Kansas

West Liberty University- West Virginia

Western Governors University – Utah

Western Kentucky University – Kentucky

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (www.CAEPnet.org) advances excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation that assures quality and supports continuous improvement to strengthen- P-12 student learning.

WASHINGTON – The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) today announced a new, free professional learning resource for future educators: the CAEP Family Engagement Course. This self-paced course is designed to equip teacher candidates with practical tools, real-world scenarios, and guided reflection opportunities aimed at strengthening communication and meaningful collaboration with P-12 students’ families and caregivers.

“We had a previous version of the family engagement modules that were very well received by the field, helping to prepare teaching and administrative candidates to work with families. We have retooled the course to incorporate new technologies and update the material,” said CAEP President Christopher A. Koch. “Many providers had been using the old modules as a course, so it made sense to update the family engagement modules so that prospective teachers and principals learn how to more effectively engage with families for the benefit of P-12 students.”

Developed with support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF), and in partnership with key national partners including the National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement (NAFSCE) and BranchED, the course offers three interactive modules:

• Foundations of Family Engagement
• Communication Basics and Strategies for Family Engagement
• Designing a Family Engagement Plan

“These modules deepen teacher candidates’ preparation so they’re ready, from day one, to build strong partnerships with families in support of student learning,” said Patricia Alvarez McHatton, Chief Program Officer at BranchED. “By learning how to engage families as trusted collaborators, candidates enter classrooms confident and grounded in authentic relationships that make learning meaningful.”

CAEP’s new Family Engagement Modules expand on the definition of family, recognizing that family means different things to different children. The updated course will help teachers enter a classroom with the knowledge and experience to develop a coherent family engagement plan that aligns with program goals, classroom practices, and student needs.

“Educators who develop the skills and strategies to engage families including parents, caregivers, siblings, grandparents, and extended relatives in supporting student success are better equipped to lead thriving classrooms,” said Vito Borrello, Executive Director of NAFSCE. “These newly expanded and refined modules offer valuable resources for both teachers and those who prepare and train them to approach family and community engagement with greater intentionality. In addition, these enhanced modules help educator preparation programs more effectively meet the updated CAEP standards which now raise the bar by integrating best practices in family and community engagement.”

The course is available now through the CAEP Learning Center. There is no cost to access the modules, making it an accessible resource for educator preparation providers (EPPs), teacher candidates, and partner organizations. The courses can be taken individually or completed as a full course sequence, offering flexible options to fit into teacher preparation programs. For more information about the CAEP Family Engagement Modules please visit https://caepnet.org/family-engagement/ .

###

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (www.CAEPnet.org) advances equity and excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation that assures quality and supports continuous improvement to strengthen P-12 student learning.

WASHINGTON – The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) announced today the recipients of three prestigious awards that highlight leadership, service, and innovation in educator preparation. These honors—the Frank Murray Leadership Recognition for Continuous Improvement, the Shelly M. Boardman Award for Exceptional Volunteer Service, and the Emerson J. Elliott Award for Excellence in Educator Preparation Continuous Improvement—reflect CAEP’s commitment to advancing equity and excellence in education through quality, evidence-based practices.

The Frank Murray Leadership Recognition for Continuous Improvement is awarded to 22 educator preparation providers (EPPs) that achieved accreditation with no stipulations or areas for improvement by demonstrating strong evidence and data trends. Named after the founding President of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), the award celebrates Murray’s legacy as a champion for rigorous educator preparation standards and his role in uniting the profession through the creation of CAEP.

“These providers are committed to preparing their candidates to make a positive difference in the lives of all K-12 students as soon as they enter the classroom,” said Yuhang Rong, Chair of the CAEP Board of Directors. “The Murray Leadership Recognition highlights their dedication to continuous improvement, accountability, and quality through purposeful use of evidence.”

Recipients of the 2025 Frank Murray Leadership Recognition include:

• Anderson University, South Carolina
• Christopher Newport University, Virginia
• Dickinson State University, North Dakota
• Eastern Kentucky University
• Fort Hays State University, Kansas
• Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio
• Indiana University Columbus
• Indiana Wesleyan University
• Lindsey Wilson College, Kentucky
• Marietta College, Ohio
• McNeese State University, Louisiana
• Morris College, South Carolina
• New Jersey City University
• Niagara University, New York
• Southern Adventist University, Tennessee
• The University of Vermont
• University of Alaska Southeast
• University of Florida
• University of Louisiana at Lafayette
• University of Louisiana at Monroe
• University of Mount Union, Ohio
• University of Saint Joseph, Connecticut

In addition to honoring educator preparation providers, CAEP also recognized one individual and one program that exemplify dedication to service and continuous improvement:

The Shelly M. Boardman Award for Exceptional Volunteer Service pays tribute to the late Shelly M. Boardman, whose unwavering dedication and contributions significantly advanced CAEP’s mission. This award honors volunteers who embody her spirit of reliability, passion, and commitment—individuals whose consistent and meaningful service strengthens CAEP’s initiatives and inspires others to uphold the highest standards of excellence.

Awarded to

Jayne Meyer
CAEPCON September 2025

The Emerson J. Elliott Award for Excellence in Educator Preparation Continuous Improvement honors the legacy of Emerson J. Elliott, the first commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics and a leader in developing data-driven educational policy. The award recognizes educator preparation programs that demonstrate sustained dedication to improvement through robust quality assurance systems, evidence-based practices, and a culture of inquiry and accountability.

Awarded to

Morris College, SC
CAEPCON September 2025

“These awards collectively celebrate the people and programs that make lasting impacts on P-12 learning,” said CAEP President Christopher Koch. “Whether through exemplary provider performance, volunteer service, or the innovative use of data to improve educator preparation, the recipients embody CAEP’s mission of advancing equity and excellence.”

CAEP accreditation serves the dual purposes of accountability and continuous improvement. To date, 549 educator preparation providers in forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have earned CAEP Accreditation. Approximately 600 providers are currently engaged in the accreditation system.

###

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (www.CAEPnet.org) advances equity and excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based accreditation that assures quality and supports continuous improvement to strengthen P-12 student learning.

CAEP will be hosting the Fall 2025 CAEPCon September 18-19, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia. Join us at the Crystal Gateway Marriott for two days of programming that will allow you to be immersed in the CAEP Accreditation process. In addition to the main conference there will also be two post-conference workshops and one pre-conference workshop.

CAEPCon Preliminary Agenda

Registration is now open!

CAEP – Accreditation Policy and Procedures – draft for public comment Spring 2025

Learn more about how to access AIMS 2.0 below.

Access AIMS 2.0: https://caep.accreditor.com/login

• How to Access AIMS 2.0 Instructions (PDF)
• More Resources for using AIMS 2.0