1

Session B1:edTPA Policies and Implementation

GaPSC Certification and Program Officials’ ConferenceNovember 12, 2013

• Purpose– Today’s Session– edTPA

• About edTPA• Policy• Implementation• Sources of Support

Session Agenda

As you participate in the edTPA session today, we encourage you to use this live stream to make comments, offer suggestions, ask questions, and let us know any additional needs you may have.

http://todaysmeet.com/edTPA-Conference

4

Purpose and Policy

This session will focus on policy and implementation to help EPPs effectively and fully implement the edTPA by 2015-2016:

• National, state, and provider policy will be discussed;

• EPP panelists will share their strategies and activities; and

• State and national resources will be shared

….so that candidates can be successful.

Session Outcomes

6

About edTPA• The edTPA is a subject-specific performance

assessment administered during a candidate’s student teaching.

• It has been designed to be educative and predictive of effective teaching and student learning.

• The assessment, developed by Stanford University, has been field tested in over 25 states, including 8 IHEs in Georgia. This spring a large number of our private and public IHEs are piloting it with some of their programs.

7

About Effective Teaching

• Develop knowledge of subject matter, content standards and subject-specific pedagogy

• Develop and apply knowledge of varied students’ needs

• Consider research and theory about how students learn

• Reflect on and analyze evidence of the effects of instruction on student learning

8

Benefits

•Educative to inform candidates and program improvement

•Collaboration: IHE/LEA

•Informing induction programs

•Program Accountability

9

Benefits to Candidates

•An authentic, educative assessment

•Charts their early professional development progression

•Prepares them for the new teacher evaluation systems

•Identifies areas of strength and areas for development

10

Benefits to Providers

•Feedback regarding program effectiveness•Clear performance criteria and performance data

•Examine claims about what is “infused throughout the curriculum”

•Collaboration across institutions via shared outcomes•Independent, objective affirmation regarding quality of our programs•Actionable evidence to support program change

11

Projected Timeline

•Spring 2013-Fall 2013 Finalize policy incorporating edTPA

•2012-13 Introductory/Exploratory year for providers  •2013-14 Exploratory/Scaling Up year for providers

•2014-15 Partial Implementation (each provider implements edTPA with a subset/all of programs, but not consequential yet)

•2015-16 Full Implementation (each provider implements edTPA for all programs, consequential)

13

Handbook Structure

•Electronic Portfolio Demonstrating Readiness to Teach

•3-5 Day Learnng Segment focused on 3 Tasks:• Planning• Instruction• Assessment

•Clearly Articulated• What to Think About (Purpose)• What Do I Need to Do? (Check list)• What Do I Need to Write? (Commentary Prompts)

•Rubrics for Scoring

14

Evidence of Practice

•Artifacts• Authentic work completed by candidates and/or

students• Lesson plans, instructional materials and

assessment, video clips, and student work samples

•Commentaries• Description of artifacts and the rationale for using

them• Analysis of student learning and candidate

practice

15

Evidence of Practice

•Describe plans or provide descriptions or evidence of what teacher or students did;

•Justify a rationale for plans in terms of knowledge of students & research/theory;

•Analyze what happened in terms of student learning or how teaching affected student learning; and

•Explain feedback to students and next instructional steps based on assessment results

16

TPAC Artifacts of PracticePlanningPlanning InstructionInstruction AssessmentAssessment

• Instructional and social Instructional and social

contextcontext• Lesson plansLesson plans• Instructional materials, Instructional materials,

student assignmentsstudent assignments• Planning CommentaryPlanning Commentary

• Video ClipsVideo Clips• Instruction Instruction

CommentaryCommentary

• Analysis of whole Analysis of whole class assessmentclass assessment

• Analysis of learning Analysis of learning and feedback to and feedback to THREE studentsTHREE students

• Assessment Assessment CommentaryCommentary

Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness Analysis of Teaching Effectiveness

Academic Language DevelopmentAcademic Language Development

edTPA “Records of Practice”

Rubric Progression Expanding repertoire of skills & strategies Deepening of rationale and reflection

Not Ready Early BeginningTeacher

Highly AccomplishedBeginning Teacher

1 5

Teacher Focus

Student

Focus

Whole Class

Individuals/ Flex. Groups

Intentional & Well Executed

Fragmented or Indiscriminate

Rubric 5: Planning Assessments to Monitor and Support Student Learning

How are the informal and formal assessments selected or designed to monitor students’ conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, AND mathematical reasoning and/ or problem solving skills?Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

The assessments only provide evidence of students' procedural skills and/or factual knowledge.

Assessment adaptations required by IEP or 504 plans are NOT made.

The assessments provide limited evidence to monitor students’ conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, AND mathematical reasoning and/or problem solving skills during the learning segment.

Assessment adaptations required by IEP or 504 plans are made.

The assessments provide evidence to monitor students’ conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, AND mathematical reasoning and/or problem solving skills during the learning segment.

Assessment adaptations required by IEP or 504 plans are made.

The assessments provide multiple forms of evidence to monitor students’ progress toward developing conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, AND mathematical reasoning and/or problem solving skills throughout the learning segment.

Assessment adaptations required by IEP or 504 plans are made.

Level 4 plus:

The assessments are strategically designed to allow individuals or groups with specific needs to demonstrate their learning.

Assessments are NOT aligned with the central focus and standards/objectives for the learning segment.

19

http://edtpa.aacte.org

• For a helpful brief overview of edTPA called, “Using the edTPA,” please access: http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa#Overview-0, then click on “Using edTPA (PDF).”

20

Who Scores?

50% IHE faculty and 50% P-12 Educators who:

• Are subject matter experts; AND• Have experience mentoring or supervising

beginning teachers; AND• Have taught in that subject in the past 5

years; OR• Taught methods or supervised student

teachers in that field: OR • Administer teacher preparation programs

21

Usage Plan

• If any candidate’s edTPA is submitted for official scoring, the EPP is designated to be at the Implementation phase.

• All others in Georgia are considered to be at the Exploratory phase.

22

Invitation

Become a Scorer

23

National Policy

Scoring:

• A candidate will be able to designate one local EPP faculty member to view and provide feedback after the edTPA has been uploaded and before it has been submitted for official scoring.

• edTPA portfolios will be scored by trained and calibrated scorers, selected based on their experience with candidates who wish to become teachers and their content knowledge and pedagogical expertise.

24

National Policy

•ES will provide scores for each of the fifteen (15) rubrics on a scale from one (1) to five (5) as well as a score for each of the three (3) tasks. The overall score reflects the total of the scores on the fifteen (15) rubrics. The summative score of the 15 rubrics will be reported on a scale of fifteen (15) to seventy-five (75).

•Candidates will receive an individual score report from ES that will include the score obtained on each of the edTPA rubrics on each task and a total score.

25

National Policy

Access to Data:

• Designated EPPs participating in edTPA will have electronic access to demographic and performance information for candidates who have listed the EPP as a score report recipient.

• EPPs will have access to the web-based ResultsAnalyzer™ data reporting tool for edTPA to generate reports related to the EPP and the candidates enrolled at the EPP.

26

National Policy

• Score reports will be provided to candidates through the website. EPPs may also assign a contact person to receive scores for candidates who have designated the EPP.

• Scores will be retained for ten years through candidates’ “Personal edTPA Account.”

• Portfolios will be retained by ES for four years post-submission, but will not be accessible to candidates, EPPs, or GaPSC.

27

National Policy

Confidentiality:

• Prior to submitting their assessment materials to Pearson for scoring, edTPA candidates will be asked to consent to or opt out of use of their assessment materials to support continued program improvement activities conducted by SCALE and Pearson, such as future validity and reliability studies of the edTPA.

• Candidate video recordings, will not be shown in any public venue nor made available in a non-secure way.

28

National Policy

Customer Service:

• ES will support edTPA candidates and EPP faculty via phone and online customer service, providing information to candidates in response to inquiries on the nature of edTPA, registration, preparation, remediation, retesting, and technology issues associated with the electronic portfolio platform. Questions related to policy or certification regulations will be referred to the GaPSC.

29

National PolicyPricing:

• Full-portfolio: The assessment fee for the full portfolio during the two (2) years of this contract is $300, which includes access for eighteen (18) months to the edTPA electronic portfolio platform for registration, submission, scoring, and score reporting services.

• Candidates may retake the entire portfolio and pay the full assessment fee. At the time of contract renewal, the assessment fee may be revised upon mutual agreement of the parties.

30

National Policy

• Partial-portfolio: Candidates may resubmit one task and pay the single assessment task fee. The assessment fee for retaking one task of the portfolio is $100.

31

Hot off the Press

PRESS RELEASE

32

EdTPA Advisory Committee

Purpose of EdTPA Policy and Implementation Advisory Committee

• Inform policy• Establish expectations, including

milestones/activities, of where we need to be each year in order to effectively implement edTPA by 2015-2016

• Identify/build structures of support• Establish timelines

33

Draft edTPA State Policy

• Will be required to be passed to earn an Induction Certificate in the planned Tiered Certification model

• Will count fifteen percent (15)% toward the PPEM for fields in which there is a state-adopted edTPA Handbook

• Becomes consequential in 2015-2016. In short, candidates who student teach in Fall 2015 and those that student teach in Spring 2016 will be required to take the edTPA. GaTAPP candidates must take the edTPA the second semester after completing the first full semester

34

Draft edTPA State Policy

• Will be required for all Georgia state-approved EPP candidates in initial teaching fields (for which an edTPA has been state-adopted) and for all out-of-state candidates who are completing clinical field experience in Georgia’s schools

• Will not be required for service fields, even though there are edTPA handbooks for some service fields

35

Pending Decisions

• The appropriate edTPA Handbooks must be selected for each field.

• A determination regarding the PPEM score needs to be made for teaching fields for which there is state-adopted edTPA Handbook.

• A determination needs to be made whether taking or passing the edTPA is required for program completion.

36

Pending Decisions

• A Georgia passing cut score needs to be determined, which may/may not be based on the national passing cut score.

• Georgia can set additional retake policy over and above the national retake policy.

• Additional discussion is needed on how edTPA might inform induction programs.

37

Pending Decisions

• A Georgia passing cut score needs to be determined, which may/may not be based on the national passing cut score.

• Georgia can set additional retake policy over and above the national retake policy.

• Additional discussion is needed on how edTPA might inform induction programs.

38

Implementation

Panel DiscussionPam B. Cole

Interim Associate Dean, Kennesaw State University Carla Lynn Tanguay

Clinical Instructor and ECE BSED Coordinator Georgia State University

Kaye Thomas Assistant Dean and Director of Field Placement

Mercer University Pam Wetherington

edTPA Coordinator, Columbus State University

40

Panel Discussion• Access the document Session B1:

edTPA Panelists Topics and Notes• Panelists are listed with primary topics• Other panelists will add comments• As you listen to the Panel Discussion, on

the document: • Column 3, ideas you would like to add

based on your experiences with edTPA

• Column 4, what else would you like to hear from these experienced panelists?

41

Sources of Support

Contact Information

If Questions, Suggestions, Comments:

Julie Beck

julie.beck@gapsc.com

Anne Marie Fenton

annemarie.fenton@gapsc.com

Phyllis S. Payne

phyllis.payne@gapsc.com