1. 1. Rationale. This Rule outlines the requirements for organizations to gain or reaffirm approval of the educator preparation programs offered.

2. 2. Leadership: The ALSDE’s Educator Preparation Section in the Office of Teaching and Leading provides the leadership for coordination of educator preparation in the State. The ALSDE works to provide appropriate advisory and consultative services to EPPs in developing and maintaining quality preparation programs that meet the State BOE’s rules/standards.

   1. a. The ALSDE is a thought partner to EPPs in their CAEP accreditation. The ALSDE meets with the CAEP team and attends CAEP accreditation sessions. Additionally, the ALSDE works with EPPs to resolve any issues surrounding scheduling and provides feedback when applicable to EPPs regarding upcoming CAEP visits.
   2. b. The ALSDE reviews programs submitted through the State approval process. Staff attend the EPP to conduct site visits to verify written documentation that has been submitted surrounding program approval.
   3. c. The Educator Preparation Section maintains a current list of each EPP’s/ATPO's approved programs.
   4. d. The Educator Preparation Section responds to inquiries submitted by EPPs/ATPOs regarding unit and program approvals.

3. 3. Accreditation/Approval of the Educator Preparation Provider (EPP): The Alabama Literacy Act stated that all Alabama institutions must seek CAEP accreditation. Additionally, one of the options for approval of Alternative Teacher Preparation Organizations (ATPOs) is CAEP accreditation. CAEP standards can be located on the CAEP website. This is required for unit level approval.

   1. a. Full accreditation results in approval for seven years. If the EPP meets requirements for program approval, the next CAEP and program approval visit will be in seven years.
   2. b. Probationary accreditation occurs when an EPP has stipulations cited by the reviewing team. If the CAEP decision for an EPP is probationary accreditation, a resolution will be submitted to the Alabama State Board of Education to extend State program approval for up to two years to allow the EPP to have a targeted CAEP visit to determine if the previously unmet standards have been met. If the EPP’s targeted visit results in full accreditation, and program approval standards are deemed met, state approval may be extended for an additional five years.
   3. c. Rescinding programs. If all CAEP and program approval standards are not met, of if CAEP renders a denial of accreditation decision following the first CAEP review of an EPP, the process to rescind State BOE approval will be initiated. Programs will be inactivated by the State BOE. The unit will then notify candidates in writing of the decision to rescind approval and the teach out process will begin.

4. 4. Program Approval. This process will determine if an EPP will be allowed to continue offering a program leading to an Alabama Professional Educator or Leadership Certificate. An Alabama institution’s EPP may only apply for program approval if they either have full accreditation or probationary accreditation by CAEP. ATPOs may apply for program approval if they have met one of the guidelines for program approval outlined in Rule 290-3-3-.46 (Alternative Teacher Preparation Organizations (ATPO)). If this requirement is fulfilled, an ATPO may seek program approval by doing one or a combination of the following:

   1. a. CAEP Evidence Review of Standard One. To utilize this option, institutions must use the Specialty Professional Association (SPA) standards to be reviewed by a joint CAEP and State team. EPPs will submit materials for review when uploading unit material into the AIMS portal. The decision rendered by CAEP will consist of both a unit decision and individual program decisions.
   2. b. If an EPP uses the Council of Educator Preparation CAEP program review process, every accreditation-related report submitted to the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) and/or the Council of Education Preparation must be submitted to the ALSDE.
   3. c. Specialty Professional Association (SPA) Review with National Recognition. This process entails alignment of certification area program information with national standards from professional associations that have entered a partnership with CAEP through a service agreement. The review of individual programs within EPPs leads to National Recognition of programs upon meeting SPA Standards.
   4. d. If an EPP has SPA-approved programs, every accreditation report received from a SPA or discipline-specific accrediting agency must be submitted to the ALSDE.

   5. e. Alabama Program Improvement for Educators (AL-PIE). This is an Alabama specific process to review programs. It consists of the following:

      1. i. Purposes.

         1. a. Provide assurances that EPPs are offering programs designed to prepare P-12 students based upon the Alabama Course of Study framework.
         2. b. Focus on key assessments that help EPPs adjust to aid in candidate preparation for certification assessments and the rigors of teaching.
         3. c. Focus on dispositions that assist candidates with being prepared to work effectively with students, colleagues, parents, and the greater community to impact positive change in the educational system.
         4. d. Ensure that EPPs are providing field experiences that expose candidates to the realities of teaching and prepare them for on-the-job expectations.
         5. e. Assist the EPP with alignment of EPP-created assessments with proprietary assessments to aid in candidate preparation and success.

      2. ii. Required Documentation. Documents that are not required annually must be submitted 12 months prior to the onsite visit and CAEP review. If additional evidence is needed during the onsite visit, it will be requested six months prior to the visit.

         1. a. Matrix aligning content standards with curriculum, assessments, and field experiences.
         2. b. Transition points throughout the program.
         3. c. Documentation of validity and reliability for EPP created assessments.

         4. d. Alignment data comparing EPP assessments with proprietary assessments.

            1. 1. Report any discrepancies in performance.
            2. 2. Provide action plan to improve performance where discrepancies have been found.
         5. e. Program enrollment, attrition, and completion report (yearly report).
         6. f. Faculty roster (yearly report).
         7. g. Title II report (yearly report).
         8. h. Field placements matrix.

      3. iii. Visit Components. The EPP shall provide workspace, support services, lodging, reimbursement for travel expenses, and information needed by the team to complete the review process. The report of the site visit team shall include a summary statement concerning the standards and programmatic recommendations for each program.

         1. a. Interview with the Assessment Director about EPP-created assessments and proprietary assessments with documentation of validity and reliability discussion. Additionally, discrepancies and action plans will be discussed.
         2. b. Interview with the Certification Director and academic advisors to discuss transition points, cohorts, and processes relevant to certification.
         3. c. Interview with the Field and Clinical Experiences Director/Coordinator regarding Memorandums of Agreement, mutually beneficial partnerships, and assurances candidates are exposed to a variety of placements and students.
         4. d. Focus group with faculty to validate information concerning transition points, key assessments, field experiences, and innovations.
         5. e. Focus group with candidates to validate information concerning transition points, key assessments, field experiences, and academic advisement.

      4. iv. Approval Options.

         1. a. Initial approval of a new program. Approval is granted for seven years. Only yearly reports are required.
         2. b. Continued approval of an existing program.
         3. c. Probationary approval if all requirements have not been met for a new or continuing program. Approval is granted for two years. Reports are monitored annually. A follow-up visit is scheduled prior to the end of the two-year period.
         4. d. Denial of approval. EPP would need to resubmit to address requirements. EPP must notify candidates that program approval has been rescinded. A teach out agreement must be negotiated.

5. 5. EPP approval requirements for Class B and Alternative A programs.

   1. a. CAEP standards are updated and published on the CAEP website. Institutions must demonstrate that the EPP has met standards in the following areas:

      1. i.   Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
      2. ii.  Clinical partnerships and practices
      3. iii. Candidate recruitment, progression, and selectivity
      4. iv.  Program impact
      5. v.   Quality assurance system and continuous improvement

   2. b. Alabama-specific standards are based upon Specialty Professional Association’s standards and the required content assessment(s)

      1. i.    Courses, credits, and/or programs acceptable to meet state-approved program requirements
      2. ii.   Teaching field
      3. iii.  Criminal history background check
      4. iv.   Field experiences, practica, and internships
      5. v.    Key assessments
      6. vi.   Faculty qualifications
      7. vii.  Governance and accountability for educator preparation
      8. viii. Educator preparation provider (EPP) accountability

6. 6. EPP approval requirements for Class A and Class AA programs.

   1. a. CAEP standards are updated and published on the CAEP website. for teaching field programs and instructional support programs are summarized below:

      1. i.   Content and pedagogical knowledge
      2. ii.  Clinical partnerships and practices
      3. iii. Candidate quality and selectivity.
      4. iv.  Satisfaction with preparation.
      5. v.   Quality assurance and continuous improvement

   2. b. Class A and Class AA programs ensure that Class B and Alternative Class A standards are met at an advanced level if no discipline specific standards are provided.

      1. i.    Courses, credits, and/or programs acceptable to meet state-approved program requirements
      2. ii.   Teaching field
      3. iii.  Criminal history background check
      4. iv.   Field experiences, practica, and internships
      5. v.    Key assessments
      6. vi.   Faculty qualifications
      7. vii.  Governance and accountability for educator preparation
      8. viii. Educator preparation provider (EPP) accountability

7. 7. Innovative Programs. The intent of an innovation program is not to circumvent the rules outlined in this chapter. The process allows EPPs to submit programs for review for which no rules have been developed. A proposal justifying the request for the review and for approval of an innovative program shall be required. The proposal shall include:

   1. a. Justification of the need for the program
   2. b. Purposes the proposed program will serve
   3. c. Objectives of the program based upon current research that are developed cooperatively by the institution and its P-12 partners
   4. d. Curriculum checklist detailing the hours for the program.
   5. e. Justification for deviation from the original code rules for that level of certification (i.e., Class B in Section 5)
   6. f. Detailed statement of the knowledge and abilities applicable to the proposed program.
   7. g. Timeline of anticipated sequence of activities and evaluation checkpoints.
   8. h. Testing requirements of the AECAP must be met if an assessment is designed to cover the content.
   9. i. An annual report shall be provided to the ALSDE Educator Preparation Section.
   10. j. Approval granted for the innovative program shall not exceed the period of currently approved programs at the institution. The innovative program will be reviewed during the next review just as all other programs.

8. 8. Review of Decisions to Rescind Programs.

   1. a. Unit approval must be achieved through CAEP. If a denial of approval is rendered through CAEP, there is no review process. The unit will be required to do a teach out agreement. Programs may be proposed once unit approval is again achieved through CAEP.

   2. b. Program Recission.

      1. i. If the decision to rescind programs was rendered by SPAs or CAEP, the EPP may send a written request to the State Superintendent of Education seeking a special review through the Alabama Educator Continuous Improvement Process.

         1. a. The State Superintendent of Education will have the request reviewed by the Educator Preparation Section.
         2. b. If the ALSDE allows the subsequent review of programs through AL-PIE, the EPP will be informed. The EPP will be required to submit all documentation for the AL-PIE process to the ALSDE. Written documentation will be reviewed, and a visit will be scheduled.
         3. c. If the ALSDE does not allow the review of programs through AL-PIE, the EPP will receive a letter explaining why the review is not allowed. Programs will then be discontinued, and the EPP may submit programs in two years as new programs.

      2. ii. If the decision to rescind programs was rendered by the ALSDE because of a review through the AL-PIE process, the EPP may submit a letter to the State Superintendent of Education challenging the decision to rescind programs. The request should include:

         1. a. Written challenge

         2. b. Documentation that was submitted for review that suggests that the decision rendered is incorrect

            The State Superintendent of Education will appoint a team to review the challenge consisting of LEA and IHE representatives. Only individuals with a high degree of competence will serve on this review team.

            
            The team will review all evidence presented, conduct necessary interviews, and provide a written statement to the State Superintendent of Education. This statement will determine if the decision to rescind the program stands or if the programs will have probationary approval with a review in the next two years.

9. 9. Educator Data.

   1. a. Teaching Shortage Report. Information relating to high needs fields and teacher shortages by district will be made available to EPPs and LEAs by the Office of Teaching and Leading.
   2. b. Program Enrollment, Attrition, and Completion Report. EPPs will submit a report annually regarding program admissions, persistence, withdrawal, and completion.
   3. c. Completer and Employer Satisfaction Surveys. The completer and employer satisfaction surveys were designed by the Alabama Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (ALACTE). The surveys are currently administered as a part of the Alabama Teacher Mentoring Program (ATMP). The data is analyzed by the ALSDE and provided to the EPPs and the public on the annual report card.
   4. d. Report Card. The State Superintendent of Education may stipulate the factors to be included in a report card, allowing a reasonable amount of time for information to be gathered and prepared for dissemination.
   5. e. Liaison with Other Agencies That Accredit or Develop Standards for Education Preparation Program. The ALSDE shall maintain contact with other entities that impact educator preparation programs in the state. Continual membership shall be maintained with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC), the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE), and the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The ALSDE shall maintain maximum cooperation with these agencies and shall coordinate the approval of educator preparation programs with the functions of these agencies whenever feasible.

Author: Dr. Eric G. Mackey

Statutory Authority: Code of Ala. 1975, §§16-3-16 and 16-23-14.

Editor’s Note: Previous Rule .45.01 was renumbered .45 per certification published August 31, 2021; effective October 15, 2021.

History: New Rule: Filed December 9, 1999; effective January 13, 2000. Amended: Filed March 14, 2002; effective April 18, 2002. Repealed and New Rule: Filed September 11, 2003; effective October 16, 2003. Repealed and New Rule: Filed July 13, 2004; effective August 17, 2004. Repealed and New Rule: April 14, 2005; effective May 19, 2005. Repealed and New Rule: Filed August 6, 2007; effective September 10, 2007. Repealed and New Rule: Filed August 3, 2009; effective September 7, 2009; operative October 1, 2009. Amended: Filed June 15, 2012; effective July 20, 2012. Repealed and New Rule: Filed August 13, 2015; effective September 17, 2015. Amended: Filed September 13, 2018; effective October 28, 2018; operative June 1, 2019. Repealed and New Rule: Published August 31, 2021; effective October 15, 2021. Repealed and New Rule: Published March 31, 2025; effective May 15, 2025.