As part of its commitment to transparency and public accountability, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), the nation’s newest specialized accrediting body, is seeking public comment on the recommendations developed by the CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting.
Following a public comment period, the Commission will consider the feedback received in developing its final recommendations to the CAEP Board of Directors.
This is one of their standards:
Admission standards indicate that candidates have high academic achievement and ability
3.4 The provider sets admissions requirements, including CAEP minimum criteria or the state’s minimum criteria, whichever are higher, and gathers data to monitor applicants and the selected pool of candidates. The provider ensures that the average GPA of its accepted cohort of candidates meets or exceeds the CAEP minimum GPA of 3.0 and a group average performance in the top third of those who pass a nationally normed admissions assessment such as ACT, SAT or GRE.
Our teacher prep program clears that floor by a mile, so the following question isn't a self-interested one.
For purposes of a policy like this, does it matter if the 3.0 GPA is comes from education classes versus from those in another major?
For example, let's imagine 2 candidates applying to a masters degree program in teaching. Both come from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and have BA degrees.
*Jill has a 2.9 in economics.
*Joe has a 3.3 in education.
Which better indicates what CAEP calls "high academic achievement and ability"?
Here are average GPAs by major from UW-Madison. According to this, Joe, the 3.3 education major would be below average compared to his peers, and Jill, the 2.9 econ major, would be average compared to her peers.
Yet under the policy proposed, if I understand correctly, Joe -- the below average education major -- would "look better on paper."
The hope is to block out low GPA students from the profession of teaching, and thereby raise its status. I wonder if this new policy might have unintended consequences.
For example, let's say you want to one day get a masters degree in teaching. You're majoring in history, and have an undistinguished GPA. Wouldn't it make sense to change majors to education instead, if indeed it's easier at your university to earn a high GPA?
If there's enough of this unintended behavior, the result would be: more undergraduates taking education classes, fewer taking "content" classes (i.e., university-level English, history, math, science, etc), no?
(I realize a skeptic might think: that's exactly what an ed schools trade association would want, policies that would look like they're raising the bar, but actually steer more customers to their undergraduate programs, pulling them away from other fields. However, I cannot imagine that is the motive here).
My second question is how much the 3.0 GPA would affect most Ed Schools. Here is the existing average.
The average Ed School, at least, would not need to change admissions processes at all in order to hit the 3.0 average. I wonder how many institutions are below the 3.0 threshold and would need to change.
My third question is: what is the evidence that high GPA teachers are much better teachers? I honestly don't know. I thought I'd read the link existed but was fairly modest.
Some similar questions in England.