Section 2: History of the Experimental Program Standards

Adopted March 2008

In 1978, the Commission adopted guidelines for the development and approval of experimental programs of professional preparation. The Commission distributed these guidelines and encouraged colleges and universities to develop experimental programs for approval under the terms of Education Code section 44273.

During the next seven years, colleges and universities proposed fourteen experimental programs for the Commission to approve. The Commission approved all fourteen proposals. During the same period, partial drafts of several other experimental program proposals were received by the Commission’s staff, but the sponsoring institutions did not complete these additional proposals. The experimental program guidelines related to professional competencies and field experiences were substantially different from those for other programs. To fulfill these guidelines, an institution was required to provide statements or descriptions of:

• Purposes of the program,
• Anticipated value of the program to teacher education,
• Experimental or research hypotheses that guided the program design,
• Methodology and procedures of the program,
• Program’s objectives, and the relationship of these to the Commission’s competency guidelines for other programs,
• How the program departs from the Commission’s regular program requirements,
• Criteria to be used in evaluating candidates’ skills and knowledge,
• Procedures to be used in evaluating the program, and,
• Reporting procedures by which the results of the program were to be communicated to the Commission.

The Commission also adopted policies regarding the reporting obligations of institutions that operated experimental programs, the term of approval of experimental programs, the renewal of such approval, and the award of credentials to candidates who complete experimental programs after the experimental program approval expires. These policies required institutions to report annually on experimental programs, and to present a final report of each completed experiment. The Commission’s staff was required to present an annual report about all experimental programs to the Commission. Specific conditions in which an experiment could be extended were enumerated, as were the conditions under which credentials were granted to candidates who complete expired programs.

On many occasions since 1978, Commissioners have affirmed and reaffirmed their desire to encourage experimentation in educator preparation, and their willingness to consider experimental programs. In 1986, the Commission thoroughly reexamined its own policies to determine how they might be shaped to encourage greater experimentation that would contribute to knowledge of educator preparation, and innovation that would contribute to greater diversity in educator preparation.

Redesign of the Experimental and Alternative Program Policies, 1986

In 1986, the Commission’s professional staff sought to determine why the response to the experimental program option had been so low. Discussions of this issue among commissioners and staff members, combined with correspondence and conversations with education professors and deans, led to the following explanations:

1) The Commission’s guidelines for experimental programs allowed institutions to depart from the “regular” program requirements of the Commission. However, from 1978 until 1986, the Commission did not clearly communicate the extent to which experimental programs could depart from the requirements of laws that govern non-experimental programs. As a consequence, most institutions conceived of experimental programs within the restrictive framework of laws that apply only to non-experimental programs.

2) The requirement that institutions indicate how an experimental program departs from the Commission’s regular requirements had a “chilling” effect on some institutions that might otherwise propose experimental programs. Similarly, the requirement that institutions identify the relationship between a program’s objectives and the Commission’s regular competency guidelines was interpreted by some institutions to mean that the Commission expected experimental programs to pursue the same competency objectives as regular programs.

3) With the exceptions noted above, the Commission’s guidelines for documenting experimental programs were generally reasonable, particularly in light of the legal requirement that institutional proposals to establish experimental programs be “supported by detailed data and justification” (Ed Code section 44273(a)). However, the documentation requirements were seen as formidable in many institutions where there were few incentives for faculty to spend time and energy developing innovations in teacher education.

Development of the Revised Experimental Program Standards, 2007-08

As the COA and the Accreditation Study Work Group (Work Group) reviewed and proposed revisions to the Commission’s accreditation system, they discussed the Experimental Program option. Three points were of major interest: 1) the underutilization of this option in the past; 2) a need to update the standards to reflect current best practices in research-based program design and assessment; and 3) a need to clarify Commission and COA processes and procedures with respect to Experimental Programs. There was significant interest in both revising the Experimental Program Standards and reinvigorating field interest in Experimental Programs in order to contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of educator preparation. Consensus was reached that a revision of the standards was necessary to reflect current best practices of research-based program design and assessment as well as clarification of Commission and COA processes and procedures with respect to Experimental Programs.

A subgroup of COA and Work Group members met a number of times to review and suggest revisions to the current Experimental Program Standards. The draft revised standards were discussed by the COA and the group revised the draft standards based on the COA’s feedback. At the June 2007 COA meeting, the COA requested that staff take the revised draft experimental program standards to the Commission for consideration. The draft standards were initially presented to the Commission for information at the August 2007 meeting and subsequently posted on the Commission’s website for field comment.

Policy Principles Underlying the 2008 Redesign of Experimental Program Standards

The following principles represent Commission guidelines related to the proposal, review and evaluation of Experimental Programs.

1. The Commission encourages experimental programs that seek to resolve significant questions regarding educator preparation. Experimental programs must have a scholarly focus, and proposals must be research-based and clearly identify the issue being investigated, the intended outcomes and the evidence that will be collected, analyzed and used for program improvement.
2. Colleges, universities and school district educator preparation programs are encouraged to develop experimental programs that depart from the Commission's program standards for traditional programs if the proposed program meets the goals of the statement above. The Common Standards will apply to all proposals and submissions—both traditional and experimental.
3. The Committee on Accreditation will approve experimental programs that adhere to the experimental program standards, including indicators of candidate competence and how they will be assessed. As part of this process, the institution/program sponsor must describe how it will investigate and evaluate the experimental program. Biennial reports of research findings will be required as a part of the accreditation cycle. Experimental programs will be approved providing they have the potential to improve the quality of service authorized by the credential as required by Education Code.
4. An experimental program proposal will be determined to have merit based upon an analysis of its proposed design to address fundamental issues in schooling in California and preparing educators for those settings.
5. Experimental programs will be evaluated based upon the proposal and the data collected related to program quality and candidate competence. The potential for improving the quality of service authorized by the credential will be determined on the basis of analysis of the indicators of program effectiveness that the institution/program sponsor submits as part of its program proposal.
6. Each experimental program submits a final report to the Committee. The Committee on Accreditation hears the reports on results of Experimental Programs and innovations. The Committee may recommend to the Commission a review of Program Standards based on data and scholarship regarding educator preparation reported by Experimental Programs.

The COA and Work Group agreed early in the process that it is essential that candidates completing an experimental program have, at minimum, the same knowledge, skills and abilities as candidates who complete a program operating under the adopted program standards. The institution/program sponsor is responsible for proposing an experimental research design as well as a program design that together indicate a high likelihood of producing candidates with the appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities as well as contributing to the knowledge base within the education profession. The COA will approve only those experimental programs that have completed the peer review process and demonstrate a high possibility of meeting both goals— preparing qualified candidates and contributing to the professional knowledge base related to the preparation of California educators.

Although field comment received was minimal, the COA revised the standards to address both the questions raised by the Commission at the August 2007 meeting and other issues raised by the members of the Committee as they discussed this topic further at their January 2008 meeting. One of the areas of concern raised by the Commission related to the duration of time that a program may be considered an experimental program. This question was subsequently discussed by the COA and, as a result, the proposed standards were revised to indicate that a time limit will be needed as part of the proposal and that no experimental program may exceed 7 years. Among the changes to the procedures related to Experimental Standards was a clarification that programs must submit proposals that address the Preconditions as well as the Common Standards and the Experimental Program Standards. In addition, the revised procedures discussed in the agenda item include a requirement that all experimental programs must provide the COA with a midpoint progress report to help ensure sufficient oversight of these programs. Finally, clarification was made in the procedures that the final evaluation of the program must include next steps for the program, including plans for dissemination of program evaluation results, thereby allowing the COA the opportunity to discuss the future of the program after its completion as an experimental program.

Rationale for Experimental Programs

The experimental program option is designed to encourage innovations in educator preparation and investigation of those innovations, with the aim of increasing the profession’s knowledge about the process of professional learning and improving professional practice for the benefit of all students in California. Experimental programs were provided for in Education Code 44273(a) as a way for programs of “merit and the potential of improving the quality of service authorized by the credential” to be developed. In the past, few programs have been submitted under this option. The revised Experimental Program standards take into account this under-utilization and are designed to encourage innovation with accountability to the profession.

Experimental programs can be proposed and are encouraged in any credential area. They should be outcome driven and address the need for high quality educators in leadership and support roles to promote and facilitate learning for all students, as well as, for classroom teachers.

California’s educator work force is prone to fluctuation and change. There will always be a need for highly qualified and effective educators. Institutions are encouraged to develop experimental programs, incorporating innovative and new ways designed to attract individuals to the profession and prepare highly qualified educators to meet the needs of California’s public school students.

Institutions are particularly encouraged to develop proposals for experimental programs to address the following specific needs in California: (a) the need for quality educators in low performing schools, and/or those serving large numbers of minority students, low-income students, and English language learners; (b) critical needs for teachers in specific areas, such as math and science; and (c) the need for highly qualified teachers given the expected future teacher shortage.

In general, experimental program options should be designed with the aim of improving educator preparation and professional practice for the benefit of all educators and students in California’s schools. Program improvement should be an ongoing professional process whereby programs develop, implement and investigate preparation approaches informed by the latest research and literature. The results of these investigations should then be disseminated within the professional and policy arenas to encourage, as appropriate, broader use and adaptation to current practice.

Goals for Experimental Programs

The goals for experimental programs include the following:

1. As with all other Commission program completers, experimental program completers have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities as identified by the Commission’s candidate competence standards to teach and support student learning for all children in California public schools.
2. Program completers can, through their practice, meet the needs of populations that have been underserved and contribute to the success of all students (including meeting the needs of English language learners and/or helping to close the achievement gap).
3. Experimental programs contribute to the construction of new knowledge and scholarship on educator preparation to improve student learning.