Most Frequently Cited Standards
The CAA closely monitors the citations that result from its reviews. A summary of these trends are updated annually on the website. The following guidance is offered on standards that have been most cited in recent years:
Standard 1.3 Long Term Strategic Plan
When providing your response to this standard, be sure to include in your discussion steps that have been or will be taken to implement the strategic plan, the process to regularly assess the plan that leads to ongoing quality improvement as it relates to the program’s mission and goals, and the mechanism(s) to share the plan with stakeholders.
Standard 1.7 Accuracy of Public Information
Information about the program must be current, accurate, and readily available to the public. When providing URLs that contain the Praxis pass rates, graduation rates, and employment rates, you should test each link to be sure it provides access to the desired content. The CAA requires programs to make sure these data, updated by January 1 each year, reflect current and accurate information. Please refer to Presenting Student Achievement Data for guidance. Further, with the implementation of the new accreditation standards in August 2017, student outcome measures must be labeled “Student Achievement Data” or “Student Outcome Data” on a program’s website.
Beginning January 1, 2017, a program must use the applicable accreditation statement in its entirety on its website as articulated in CAA’s Public Notice of Accreditation Status policy (see Accreditation Handbook, Chapter XII). Additional references to the program’s accreditation status on the website must be accurate but need not include all components of the accreditation statement.
Standard 2.2 Faculty Sufficiency
The CAA assesses the sufficiency of faculty based on their contribution to each professional area that is seeking an accreditation status, individual qualifications and their role in the program, full-time appointments, and other institutional support/resources that ensure sufficiency to offer the breadth and depth of the curriculum, including its scientific and research components. These efforts are to ensure that students can complete the requirements within a reasonable time period and acquire the expected knowledge and skills.
When completing the faculty detail for each faculty member, be sure you have reported workload contributions that accurately represent the allocation of their efforts to the professional area that is accredited or seeking accreditation.
Standard 5.1 Program Assessment of Students
When providing examples of formative and summative assessments, please be sure your examples are proper representations of these types of assessments:
- Formative Assessment—ongoing measurement throughout educational preparation for the purpose of monitoring acquisition of knowledge and skills and improving student learning
- Summative Assessment—comprehensive evaluation of learning outcomes, including acquisition of knowledge and skills, at the culmination of an educational experience (e.g., course, program)
Programs are advised that the Praxis exam is designed to be taken by individuals who have at least completed all academic and clinical work and often are in longer-term clinical placements or clinical fellowships (i.e., graduates of the program, rather than students). This philosophy was set forward by the Educational Testing Service in a letter to programs in 2007 along with an attachment on proper use [PDF]. Therefore, programs are advised that use of the Praxis exam as a summative assessment may not be appropriate.