CAEP Standard 1: evidence that tells a story

CAEP Standard 1 requires programs to demonstrate that completers understand content and use research-based pedagogy. This standard is fairly straightforward; however, the question of evidence is not. The most common mistake I see when reviewing CAEP programs is institutions treating Standard 1 as a list of artifacts to gather rather than a story to tell about candidate learning.

Begin your journey with the claim, not the artifact

Before you begin pulling syllabi or assessment data, write the claim your evidence is meant to support. For example, "Our completers can plan standards-aligned instruction across diverse classrooms" is a claim. A signature assignment rubric is the evidence for that claim. By doing this, your claims and evidence will be much stronger.

Three artifact types reviewers expect to see

• A measurement tool or rubric tied to InTASC, state standards, or your conceptual framework, with clear performance levels and criteria.
• Candidate performance data over at least two complete years, disaggregated by program, course, learning outcomes, and (where possible) by candidate subgroup. The more specific and detailed this data can be, the better.
• An analytic narrative that interprets the data and clearly describes the improvement decisions it informed.

Make disaggregation visible

Reviewers expect to see candidate performance broken out by completer group, program option, course, learning outcomes, and, where sample sizes allow, by demographic subgroup. If a sample is too small to disaggregate meaningfully, say so explicitly and describe how you're building toward stronger data over time.

Visibly close the loop

The strongest Standard 1 sections show a clear thread: assessment → result → interpretation → curricular or programmatic change → follow-up data. If the thread breaks, the reviewer will notice. Build the loop intentionally.