teacher performance assessment system analysislynx.csusm.edu/.../tpataskforcereportjuly30.pdf ·...

1

Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Report

Submitted by College of Education Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Task Force:

Dr. Anne René Elsbree, Dr. Lorri Santamaria, Dr. Pat Stall, and Dr. Gilbert Valadez,

The report includes the following documents:

1. Executive Summary

2. CA-TPA Analysis

3. PACT Analysis

4. Fresno Alternative TPA Analysis

The executive summary report includes:

1. brief descriptions of

a. CA-TPA

b. PACT

c. California State University Fresno Alternative TPA

2. a chart comparing the three TPA options

3. our recommendations

The Analysis Report of each of the TPA options include:

1. Executive summary

2. How the system would look in the context of our College of Education

3. Anticipated/necessary changes to current program curriculum and assessment practices.

4. Anticipated changes to current forms and processes for completion of forms in order that

necessary assessment data is collected.

5. Personnel required for sustaining the system once in place.

6. Training needs

7. Equipment needs to implement the system

8. Implementation plan

9. Faculty, staff, administration roles in the ongoing assessment system

10. Advantages in adopting the selected system

11. Challenges in adopting the selected system

12. Summary conclusions and recommendations

2

Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Executive Summary

Date: July 24, 2007

To: The College of Education Community

From: Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Task Force -

Dr. Anne René Elsbree, Dr. Lorri Santamaria, Dr. Pat Stall, and Dr. Gilbert Valadez, College of

Education

Re: Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Report

Introduction

In May 2007 Teacher Performance Assessment System Analysis Task Force was given the charge to

provide you a report with recommendations concerning the development and implementation of Teacher

Performance Assessment (TPA) for the College of Education, California State University San Marcos. We

want it to be clear that our report is a recommendation; the final decision will be made by the COE

community. This report includes: descriptions of The CA-TPA, PACT, California State University Fresno

Alternative TPA, a chart comparing the three TPA options, and our recommendations. We will provide

more detailed information and time for discussion at the Fall Retreat and look forward to your decision.

The Taskforce regularly met May through July to review each TPA option. In addition to our meetings and

conversations we researched each of the models, interviewed faculty and pertinent program personnel

involved with the models, and developed implementation plans for each. Our primary considerations were:

- Support of teacher candidates in this high stakes assessment

- Staff and faculty workload concerns

- Alignment with our mission

TPA Model Descriptions

Each of the models has similar tasks, e.g. planning, subject matter competency, assessment, and teaching

performance. The primary differences are in the implementation requirements. At best the completion of

the TPAs helps the teacher candidates learn more about their teaching; however, the whole TPA package

can be viewed by candidates as onerous and overwhelming in addition to the current teaching and

coursework responsibilities. The task force consistently considered how to support teacher candidates to

focus on their learning and view the Teaching Performance Assessment in that vein. The reflective nature

of the tasks can be a positive influence in teacher development. Of the three models, only the CA-TPA

provided completion of the tasks over more than one semester to allow for more reflection time, coaching

in coursework and remediation throughout the credential program. The PACT and Fresno Alternative TPA

are implemented entirely in the student teaching experiences with little coursework support or time for

guiding the reflection and coaching for success.

CA-TPA

The California Teacher Performance Assessment (CA-TPA) builds in assessment for the teacher candidates

throughout the credential program with support from coursework. CA-TPA is embedded in candidate

coursework (Tasks 1-3) and advanced student teaching (Task 4). It consists of 4 tasks:

Task 1: Subject Specific Pedagogy Task

Task 2: Designing Instruction

Task 3: Assessing Learning

Task 4: Culminating Teaching Activity

Tasks 1 and 2 and parts of Task 3 could be embedded in semester one coursework. Task 3 can be

completed in semester two coursework and Task 4 is completed during Advanced Student Teaching.

Completing Tasks 1 and 2 in the 1st semester and Task 3 in the beginning of the 2nd

semester allows time

for coaching and remediation, when necessary, for resubmission.

3

PACT

PACT consists of embedded signature assignments as scaffolding and preparation for completion of the

actual assessment, which is centered around one teaching event during advanced student teaching. It is

quite similar to the INTASC portfolio, which is a based on the National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT)

system and is modified for beginning teachers. It consists of artifacts, commentary (analysis), and reflection

based on five tasks:

- Context for Learning

- Planning

- Instruction

- Assessment

- Reflection.

Fresno State Alternative TPA Model

Cal State University Fresno has submitted an alternative TPA model, which incorporated existing tasks,

specific to Fresno‘s credential program. Their TPA includes four key performance tasks:

Task 1: Field Experience

Task 2: Site Visitation

Task 3: Holistic Proficiency Project

Task 4: Teaching Sample Project.

The tasks are implemented in a sequence during their student teaching experiences and are heavily

dependent on supervisors and cooperating teachers coaching and assessing the candidates. It is currently

being reviewed by the commission and would have to be implemented as approved.

TPA Model Comparison

The following chart compares the three models with respect as to how each fits existing CSUSM College of

Education Programs, our Mission, and our Vision. The pros and cons of each model are articulated

graphically to provide a picture of the feasibility of each model from our perspective. Greater detail as to

the manner in which these models can be contextualized to the College of Education can be found in the

more detailed reports available through our secure website, INSERT URL HERE. The reports contain the

relevant timelines, assessment strategies, and training requirements.

TPA Model Comparison Chart

Criteria CA-TPA PACT Fresno Alternative TPA

Feasibility + Minimal impact on

program. Easily embedded in

existing coursework.

- Maximum impact on field

experience component. Additive

approach in existing fieldwork for already overwhelmed teacher

candidates.

- Maximum impact on field

experience component. Additive

approach in existing fieldwork for already overwhelmed teacher

candidates.

Alignment with Mission

& Curriculum

+ All four tasks explicitly

align with our mission and vision statement by meeting

the needs of all students,

specifically on Special Ed and ELL.

- Focus students in the teaching

event can be students who present an academic challenge,

but it does require focus on

Special Ed or ELL.

+ Tasks 2 and 4 explicitly align

with our mission and vision statement by meeting the needs of

all students, specifically on

Special Ed and ELL.

TPEs

+ All CA TPEs are embedded

in the CA-TPA, except TPE 12. CSUSM will need to

assess TPEs 6d, 6e, 12, 14,

15, and 16 separately.

+ All CA TPEs are embedded in

the PACT, except TPE 12. CSUSM will need to assess

TPEs 6d, 6e, 12, 14, 15, and 16

separately.

+ All CA TPEs are embedded in

the Fresno Alternative TPA, except TPE 12. CSUSM will need

to assess TPEs 6d, 6e, 12, 14, 15,

and 16 separately.

Validity + Study completed by the

state. All validity and

reliability costs are assumed by the state.

- Study completed by PACT

team. Continued reliability and

revalidation costs are unknown.

- Study is under review by the

state. Reliability and validity are

based on local model in Fresno. There is no guarantee that the

proposed TPA will be approved or

allowed to use elsewhere. Reliability and revalidation costs

are unknown.

Student Workload + Mildly increased workload

due to Task 4. Task 1-3 are embedded in coursework.

- Overwhelmingly increased

workload since all 4 tasks are completed in fieldwork in

addition to existing student

teaching requirements.


workload since all 4 tasks are completed in fieldwork in addition

to existing student teaching

requirements.

4

Faculty Workload - Moderately increased

workload due to curriculum modifications, training and

learning curve.

+ Mildly increased workload

since majority of the workload falls on supervision.

+ Mildly increased workload since

majority of the workload falls on supervision.

Supervision Workload + Mildly increased workload

due to suggested support for Task 4.


workload since all tasks take place in field work.


workload since all tasks take place in field work.

Staff Workload - Need a TPA coordinator and

fulltime administrative staff to supervise implementation.

This is a separate position

from Assessment Coordinator.

- Need a TPA coordinator and


This is a separate position from

Assessment Coordinator.

- Need a TPA coordinator and


This is a separate position from

Assessment Coordinator.

Program Articulation + Increase program

articulation amongst and

across programs to support student tasks.

Tasks are addressed explicitly

in coursework.

- Formative pieces necessary for

preparation of PACT should

include faculty coordination, but it may not occur because the

tasks are isolated in fieldwork

and separate from coursework.

- Formative pieces necessary for

preparation of PACT should

include faculty coordination, but it may not occur because the tasks

are isolated in fieldwork and

separate from coursework.

Data Storage + Developed and in Place

Electronic storage via

Taskstream

- Hard copy notebook storage or

develop an electronic portfolio

in Filemaker Pro

+ Developed and in Place

Electronic storage via Taskstream

Training Cost + State supported - Unknown - Unknown

Student Relevance + Embedded in coursework - Isolated in Advanced

Fieldwork

- Isolated in Fieldwork

Additional Support for

Student Teaching

- Student Teaching Seminars to support Task 4

- Student Teaching Seminars to support all 4 tasks

- Student Teaching Seminars to support all 4 tasks

+ indicates Positive Impact

- indicates Negative Impact

Recommendations of the Task Force

After consideration of these three models, the task force recommends that the CA-TPA program be piloted

with one to two cohorts in the 07-08 academic year. Throughout the pilot year, regular reports and issues

will be brought to the community (during governance or some other venue) for continued conversation and

building of knowledge. Piloting the program for a year should provide the College of Education more

insight into the logistical aspects of our assessment program.

A number of factors were considered as justifications for this recommendation. Briefly, the factors we

consider are listed as follows:

- Validity and Reliability of the CA-TPA has been determined by the state.

- Training costs will be subsidized by the state as CA-TPA is their assessment program.

- Implementation of the CA-TPA can be modified so teacher candidates do not experience a work

overload.

- CA-TPA is a formative and summative assessment that is delivered over the entire credential

program allowing for structured opportunities for guided practice and completion of the TPA‘s.

The task force believes both teacher candidates and faculty will benefit from formative

assessments prior to a final teaching performance assessment.

- The TPA‘s are truly embedded throughout the credential program in this model, which will allow

faculty to provide support and guidance for our students over time.

- The CA-TPA is the most faculty friendly in that we can use current program critical assessment

tasks and assessments. The reworking of course assignments, lesson planning, and reflective

writing would be kept to minimum.

- The CA-TPA will provide us with a unique opportunity to enhance our current programs in

meaningful ways through curriculum dialogue and course articulation.

- The CA-TPA is the most compatible with our mission statement.

We look forward to engaging in a conversation with the COE Community at the Fall Retreat.

5

CA-TPA (California Teacher Performance Assessment)


a. Overview

Senate Bill 2042 (Chapter 548, Statutes of 1998), signed by the governor in 1998,

requires all multiple and single subject preliminary credential candidates attending fifth

year, intern, or blended teacher preparation programs in California to pass a Teaching

Performance Assessment (CA-TPA). This assessment is designed to give candidates the

opportunity to develop, refine, and demonstrate their teaching knowledge, skills, and

abilities during their teacher preparation program.

The CA-TPA is imbedded in candidate coursework and is designed to be both

formative and summative in its usage. It is also linked to the California state-adopted

academic content standards for students, the California Standards for the Teaching

Profession, and the California Frameworks. The CA-TPA is part of a three-year

preparation cycle of growth and development for teachers. All teacher candidates must

take and pass the CA-TPA in order to be recommended for a Preliminary Teaching

Credential. After receiving the Preliminary Credential, and upon employment within a

California classroom, candidates will participate in an approved induction program

leading to a Professional Credential. The results of the CA-TPA will inform candidates‘

Individual Induction Plan (IIP). Completing the CA-TPA will also help candidates to

begin using the California Formative Assessment and Support System (CFASST), or

another assessment system, during induction.

b. Key Components

The CA-CA-TPA consists of a series of four sequential performance tasks that together

measure the candidate‘s performance on California‘s Teaching Performance

Expectations. These performance tasks are completed as part of the teacher preparation

program.

Subject Specific Pedagogy Task

This task requires candidates to use information provided within the prompt about

particular students to identify appropriate subject-specific instruction and assessment

plans, and to adopt this information for these students. This task is based on written

scenarios provided to the candidate that describe students in hypothetical classrooms.

The following TPEs are measured in the Subject Specific Pedagogy task:

TPE Description

1 Making subject matter comprehensible to students

3 Assessing student learning

4, 6, 7 Engaging and supporting students in learning

9 Designing instruction and designing learning experiences for students

Designing Instruction The Designing Instruction task requires the candidate to make appropriate connections

6

between what the teacher knows about the students in the class to his/her instructional

planning for those students. This written task contains a five-step set of prompts that

focuses the candidate on first identifying and then applying the connections between the

students' characteristics and learning needs and the teacher‘s instructional planning and

adaptations for those specific students. The following TPEs are measured in the

Designing Instruction task:

TPE Description


4, 6, 7 Engaging and supporting students in learning

8, 9 Designing instruction and designing learning experiences for students

13 Developing as a professional educator

Assessing Learning The Assessing Learning task requires candidates to demonstrate their ability to design

standards-based, appropriate student assessment activities in the context of a small group

of students using a specific standards-based lesson of the candidate‘s choice. In addition,

candidates demonstrate their ability to conduct assessment activities appropriately to

assess student learning and to diagnose student instructional needs based on the results of

the assessment(s). The following TPEs are measured in the Assessing Learning task:

TPE Description

3 Assessing student learning

6, 7 Engaging and supporting students in learning



Culminating Teaching Activity The Culminating Teaching task is the culminating activity of the set of three CA-TPA

tasks. In this task, the candidate designs a standards-based lesson for a class of students

and teaches that lesson to actual K-12 students within the classroom setting, while

making appropriate use of class time and instructional resources, meeting the differing

needs of individual students within the class, managing instruction and interactions with

and between students, and assessing student learning. Following the lesson, the candidate

demonstrates the ability to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson. To ensure

equity to all candidates in the scoring of the Culminating Teaching task, a videotape of

the lesson is collected and reviewed as evidence during the scoring process. All TPEs

except for TPE 12 (Professional, Legal and Ethical Obligations) are measured in the

Culminating Teaching task:

TPE Description


7

2, 3 Assessing student learning

4, 5, 6, 7 Engaging and supporting students in learning


10, 11 Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning


In order to score the Tasks, each one has a specific scoring rubric that describes the

characteristics of a candidate‘s performance relative to that task. Each rubric has four

score levels, ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 4. Scorers (assessors) are trained and

calibrated to apply each rubric to candidate performance.


TPEs are embedded in Tasks 1-4. We could likely replace TPEs with CA-TPAs

on Taskstream. TPEs would then be assessed as they are embedded in CA-TPAs

by corresponding course faculty.

CA-TPA Tasks 1-4 could feasibly be managed on Taskstream without any

additional costs to candidates. Faculty and assessors however, would need some

Taskstream training and support. Also, candidates can work on Tasks, post Tasks

when ready for review/ scoring, and create ‗Exit Portfolios;‘ all while Instructors

and Assessors can formatively and formally access Candidate CA-TPAs readily.

Taskstream also has a ‗place‘ where students can virtually house up to two

minutes if their Task 4 videotaped culminating teaching experience (a possible

storage solution, worthy of further discussion and investigation).

Subject Specific Pedagogy Task

MS, ICP, ML, & SS- Adjust current Critical Assessment Task ( CAT) for 511 to

become one of these tasks for week 4 of first semester. 511 Instructors would be

responsible for managing and formatively evaluating this work as a part of their

course curriculum. 511 instructors are not required to be CA-TPA Assessors

officially trained in the Task, but would be familiar with formal training and use the

same rubrics and scoring methods as Trained Assessors. It is furthermore suggested

that instructors not score their own students‘ work when possible, but that of another

instructors‘ section to ensure reliability. The task would then be formally scored by

CA-TPA Assessors trained in the Task after candidates‘ final submission to

Taskstream on the designated submission date. This process would provide rich data

to the CSUSM COE and the CCTC.

Designing Instruction

MS, ICP, ML, & SS- Adjust current CAT for 555 to become this task for week 6 of

first semester. 555 Instructors would be responsible for managing and formatively

8

evaluating this work as a part of their course curriculum. Instructors are not required

to be CA-TPA Assessors officially trained in the Task, but would be familiar with

formal training and use the same rubrics and scoring methods as Trained Assessors.

It is furthermore suggested that instructors not score their own students‘ work when

possible, but that of another instructors‘ section to ensure reliability. The task would

then be formally scored by CA-TPA Assessors trained in the Task after candidates‘

final submission final submission to Taskstream on the designated submission date.

This process would provide rich data to the CSUSM COE and the CCTC.

Assessing Learning

MS, ICP, ML & SS- Adjust current CAT for 521 & 522 to become this task for the

first semester, to be assessed on week 4 of the second semester. 521 Instructors

would be responsible for preparing candidates to assess learners. 522 Instructors

would be responsible for managing and formatively evaluating the implementation of

assessing learning as a part of their course curriculum. 521 & 522 Instructors are not

required to be CA-TPA Assessors officially trained in the Task, but would be familiar

with formal training and use the same rubrics and scoring methods as Trained

Assessors. It is furthermore suggested that instructors not score their own students‘

work when possible, but that of another instructors‘ section to ensure reliability. The

task would then be formally scored by CA-TPA Assessors trained in the Task after

candidates‘ final submission final submission to Taskstream on the designated

submission date. This process would provide rich data to the CSUSM COE and the

CCTC.

Tasks 1& 2 are strategically assigned during the 1st semester so that remediation is

possible if necessary during the second 8 weeks for Full-time credential programs.

Task 3 is learned during the 1st eight weeks and implemented during the 2

nd eight

weeks for full-time programs. Part-time programs will spread tasks out depending on

when courses are offered making remediation feasible.

Time-lines below specify suggested course impact, responsibility, and follow-up for

Full and Part-time credential programs. ICP time-lines will vary as may those of

students attaining Special Education teaching credentials.

Suggested timeline and breakdown of responsibilities for Tasks 1-3:

Full time Programs

Semester 1 Course Impacted

and Action

Who Responsible/

for What

Follow-up

Week 4 Task 1: Subject

Specific Pedagogy

Task Replaces 511

CAT

Candidates post to

511 Instructor facilitates

Task.

Instructors use CA-TPA

Rubrics to grade/ score

by end of week 5.

Trained Assessors score

CA-TPA in time for

feedback to students in

case remediation is

necessary.

9

Taskstream by end of

week 4. End of week 5

for Task 1.

End of week 7

for Task 2.

Tasks 1 & 2

need to be

passed by end of

1st semester.

Week 6 Task 2: Designing

Instruction Replaces

555 CAT

Candidates post to


week 6.


Task.



by end of week 7.

Weeks 3-8 Task 3: Assessing

Learning planning and

adaptations replace 521

CAT

Candidates post work

in progress to


week 8.

521 Instructors prepare

candidates for Task.


Rubrics to guide grading

process by end of

semester.

Semester 2

Week 4 Task 3: Assessing

Learning Assessment

and analysis replace

522 CAT

Candidates post

completed work in


week 4.

522 Instructors facilitate

Task.



by end of week 5.


CA-TPA in time for


case remediation is

necessary.

End of week 4

(2nd

semester) for

Task 3.

Task 3 needs to

be passed by

week 8 of 2nd

semester.

Part-Time Programs

Semester 1 Course Impacted

and Action

Who Responsible/

for What

Follow-up

Week 7 Task 1: Subject

Specific Pedagogy

Task Replaces 511

CAT

Candidates post to



Task.



by end of week 8.


CA-TPA in time for


case remediation is

necessary.

10

week 7. End of week 8

for Task 1.

End of week 11

for Task 2.

2nd

Semester; end of

week 8 for Task 3

Week 10 Task 2: Designing

Instruction Replaces

555 CAT

Candidates post to


week 10.


Task.



by end of week 11.

Semester 2

Week 7 Task 3: Assessing

Learning Replaces 521

CAT

Candidates post to


week 7.


Task.



by end of week 8.

Culminating Teaching Activity

MS, ICP, ML & SS-There have been many discussions as to ways in which to think

about implementing this task, which includes a somewhat prescribed culminating

student teaching experience as well a videotaped record of that teaching experience.

It is suggested that this activity be (a) introduced in 512 or any other content specific

second (final) semester course in which candidates design standards-based lessons for

a class of students (e.g., Science, Social Studies, Math methods) and (b) supported

during advanced student teaching via three required seminars. The Task like others

would be posted to Taskstream and scored by CA-TPA Assessors trained in the task.

Seminar Leaders may be required to score the Task to provide an additional score for

consideration, providing additional data to CSUSM COE and the CCTC.

Suggested timeline and breakdown of responsibilities for Task 4:

Timeline Component Task Responsibility Follow-up Action

Week 6, 2nd

Semester (or

last semester

for PT

students)***

512, 544, 545 or

other content area

course

Instructor/ Faculty:

Ensure all candidates design

standards-based lesson for

class of students (i.e., K-8; 9-

12; special education).

Ensure all candidates given

access to appropriate

permissions documents for

videotaping lesson of final

observation.

None.

Week 9 Required

Advanced

Student Teaching

Seminar Leader using specified content,

based on CA-TPA 4:

Review appropriate use of

1. Seminar Instructor

forwards attendance

records to CA-TPA

11

(ST) Seminar 1*,

**

class time and instructional

resources (511 content).

Review meeting differing

needs of individual students

within class (555, 511, & 512

content).

Videotaping procedures

introduced.

Coordinator.


revisits themes in Req.

Adv. ST Seminar.

Week 10 Required

Advanced ST

Seminar 2

Seminar Leader using specified content,

based on CA-TPA 4:

Review managing instruction

and interactions with and

between students (511 & 512

content).

Review assessing student

learning (521, 522, 555

content).

Video taping equipment check-

out procedures reviewed.


forwards attendance

records to CA-TPA

Coordinator.


collects and forwards videotaping permissions

to CA-TPA Coordinator.


prepares students as

necessary for Required

Observation.

Week 12 Videotaped

Culminating

Teaching Activity

Candidates teach lessons

designed in content area course

(week 6, 2nd

semester) to K-12

students within classroom

setting.

It is suggested that candidates

be observed by regular Adv.

ST Supervisor or Cooperating

Teacher during this time.

1. The Supervisor may

make observation notes

and scores candidate

pursuant to specifications

for CA-TPA Task 4.

Week 13 Required

Advanced ST

Seminar 3

(Candidates are

assessed)

Seminar Leader ensures:

Candidates demonstrate ability

to analyze strengths and

weaknesses of lesson taught by

completing Task 4 on

Taskstream (should take place

in computer lab or other

classroom).

Candidates turn in videotaped

record of lesson.


forwards attendance

records to CA-TPA

Coordinator.


collects videotaped

record of lesson.


forwards videotaped

observations to CA-TPA

Coordinator.

Week 14 CA-TPA

Evaluation

CA-TPA Assessors:

o Verify candidates have turned in

videotaped record of lesson to

ensure equity to all candidates in

the scoring of the Culminating

Teaching task.

1. Tasks scored by CA-

TPA Assessors trained in

the task.

Remediation to

take place during

weeks 15, 16 or

12

beyond.

*Required Advanced ST Seminars will be organized, taught, and delegated to

instructors recruited by the CA-TPA Coordinator in close consultation with the

Field Experience Director.

**Seminars would be part of the units in Advanced Student Teaching (MS EDMS

572.

***Timeline would be adjusted appropriately for SS and Part-time Candidates.

Note: Other scenarios have been discussed and certainly could be considered. This is

just one.

3. Anticipated/necessary changes to current program curriculum and assessment

practices.

TPE Taskstream assignment and completion would potentially be REPLACED by

the CA-TPA process.

A cadre of scorers will need to be trained rather quickly:

o At least 1 CA-TPA evaluator per Task, per Cohort needs to be identified

and prepared in order to appropriately assess candidates.

Community replacement of Critical Assessment Tasks (CATs) with CA-TPA

tasks would likely not be difficult. The unit/lesson plan required in all courses

would adopt the CA-TPA design. It is based on a universal backward planning

model similar to the one currently used. A curriculum modification team has

been suggested.

o Existing CA-TPA rubrics could replace current rubrics for CATs.

Community would coordinate 511, 512, 521, 522, & 555 coursework to integrate

specific parts of the CA-TPA tasks/assignments.

CA-TPA Tasks 1-3 are embedded in coursework.

o Task 4 is embedded in Advanced student teaching supported by 3 required

seminars.

o Tasks are to be completed on Taskstream with appropriate artifacts and

feedback to support positive outcomes for students.

Course Instructor candidate work evaluation, though aligned with Trained

Assessor rubrics, forms, and procedures are not ―official‖ scores.

o However, training opportunities will be made available to instructors,

faculty, administrators.

When Trained Assessors review complete Candidate CA-TPA Tasks, they will

assign official scores to student work.

o Students needing remediation will be coached and provided opportunity to

pass the CA-TPA in a timely manner.

o Final scores are reported.

o Students who pass all 4 Tasks, are recommended for their teaching

credentials.

13

Three Required Advanced ST Seminars are necessary to support students with

Task 4. Seminars would be part of Advanced Student Teaching (MS EDMS 572).

See timeline above for suggested implementation.

Field Experience impact for those supervising Advanced STs:

o Field Experience Director will work in close consultation with CA-TPA

Coordinator in terms of videotaping forms, procedures (including training

of Supervisors for possible modified ‗Required‘ observation), equipment,

and storage.

o Advanced ST Supervisors will have a modified component to their current

work dependent upon ways in which Task 4 is actualized.

Note: There is an anticipated overlap between personnel trained to score CA-TPAs,

those ‘instructing’ Required Adv. ST Seminars, and ST Supervisors which will increase

articulation among those supporting Candidate completion of CA-TPAs.

4. Anticipated changes to current forms and processes for completion of forms in

order that necessary assessment data is collected.

o Student Teaching forms (TPEs and summaries) would not need to be altered,

however Supervisors may want to document an observation in accordance to CA-

TPA specifications.

o Videotaping permission forms will need to be identified or developed.

o Student services will need to be apprised of passing scores for all 4 Tasks of the

CA-TPA prior to recommendation for credentialing

o Appropriate forms will need to be developed.

5. Personnel required sustaining the system once in place.

CA-TPA Coordinator(s):

o Create calendar for Task submission and evaluation on Taskstream for

each semester

o Recruit, train, and manage scorers

o Create Task Remediation Plan for students who do not pass CA-TPAs

o Train seminar leaders (who may also be scorers)

o Manage CA-TPA Assessment System

Training logistics

Taskstream

set-up

communication, etc

Videotaping

Equipment

Storage of hard-copies

o Work in close consultation with Field Experience Director

Especially for Task 4

14

o Work in close consultation with COE course instructors

In terms of communication on Task implementation

General COE Assessment Coordinator

o Data collection and analysis

o Write summary reports of CA-TPA evaluation outcomes

o This is NOT THE SAME individual as the CA-TPA Coordinator

o This is NOT A TENURE LINE FACULTY person

Staff support person for CA-TPAs

Cohort Advisors (with released time or other compensation)

o Ensure CATs for all courses have been replaced by CA-TPA Tasks as

suggested

o Assist CA-TPA Coordinator in implementing CA-TPA Remediation Plans

o Ensure students understand CA-TPA implementation

Meet with students in cohort at least once during 1st 8 weeks

Meet with students at least once during 2nd

8 weeks

Can attend one Required Adv ST Seminar to support

students in lieu of 2nd

meeting

Curriculum Modification Team

o Be trained assessors

o Coordinate and design curricular modifications and implementation

o Communicate and trouble shoot with program and assessment

coordinators.

Scorers

Remediation Specialists

o May be Cohort Advisors in consultation with CA-TPA Coordinator

6. Training Needs

In terms of training our teacher preparation program must able to demonstrate the

capacity to implement the CA-TPA requirement in a manner that is valid, reliable and

fair to the candidate.

a. Who will conduct the trainings?

CCTC CA-TPA provides training for trainers for scorers. Ongoing costs are free.

Travel costs need to be considered.

b. Who will initially be involved in the trainings?

Our teacher preparation program must select qualified assessors and ensure that these

assessors are properly trained and calibrated for their responsibilities. Below are some

suggestions:

University teaching faculty, field supervisors, master teachers

K-12 teachers, supervisors, support providers, administrators

Retired faculty, teachers, administrators

15

Other education professionals

Types of training:

The Commission offers orientation training to teacher preparation programs

The Commission offers Assessor Training for

– Lead Assessors-Trainers

Lead Assessors may offer local training within their

programs/institutions/regions

– Program-level Assessors

Training Overview:

One-day Foundations and Orientation training (required for all new assessors)

Two-day task-specific training for each task

– Planning Instruction

– Assessing Learning

– Culminating Teaching Experience

c. What type of ongoing training will be required once the system is in place?

Lead Assessor Training:

A half-day module specifically designed to provide the Lead Assessor Trainer the

background, skills, and materials needed to train Assessors in their local

programs/institutions/regions

Lead Assessor training will be scheduled at a later date

Recalibration of scorers, new faculty, coordinators and cohort advisors is required

periodically.


Video cameras, tripods, storage system (may be electronic i.e., Taskstream)

Organizing storage, maintenance, and distribution may introduce challenges. One

suggestion is for school partners to house a camera (for example, on-site supervisors in

Single Subject).

8. Implementation Plan

Multiple and Single Subject Pilot Cohorts

Tasks/Activity Person(s)

Responsible

Timeline Resources Needed Benchmark

Pilot Cohorts and

faculty identified

(Arts Cohort [MS];

Single Subject)

Program

Coordinators (SS,

ICP, MS)

July

2007

Pilot Cohort

Faculty

compensation (1-2

unit course release

or overload)

Training has been

16

suggested for those

able this summer

Curricular

modifications

2 Pilot Cohort

Advisor/Faculty; 1

SS—1 MS (TBD)

August

2007

2 day retreat for

curricular planning

and modification

Course Syllabi

revised and

implemented

07-08

Create Data

Collection and

Analysis System

Assessment

Coordinator

In consultation with

Program

Coordinators

October

2007

Hire Assessment

Coordinator

(teaching

experience may be

necessary)

Comprehensive

assessment

system

identified.

Data Collection

System in

place.

Scorers Identified

and Trained (pilot

cohort faculty and

others)

Associate Dean

Cohort Advisor

As early

as

August

2007

(see

training

schedule)

Travel costs At least 1

scorer per

cohort trained.

Bimonthly Pilot

Cohort Faculty

Meetings

Cohort Advisor On-going Implementation

Benchmarks

met and

modified as

needed.

Dissemination of

Comprehensive

Assessment Plan

Overview to

relevant parties

(U.S., C.T.,

faculty, district

personnel?)

Associate Dean Spring

2008

Training DVD

produced for C.T.s

and U.S.s

Incorporated into

U.S. meetings

Training DVD

completed and

distributed.

U.S. meeting

agendas

Revised

Curriculum/Course

Syllabi from Pilot

Cohorts distributed

to faculty.

Pilot Cohort

Advisor and

Faculty

March

2008

Governance

Meeting and/or

smaller Program

specific venues

All members of

community

either trained,

lined-up for

training, or

otherwise on-

board.

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum created

Assigned/Volunteer

Faculty

May

2008

Released

Time/compensation

Remediation

Workshops

implemented

each semester.

Additional Scorers Associate Dean and ongoing Training travel At least 2

17

identified and

trained

CA-TPA

Coordinator

costs scorers per

cohort trained,

as many as

possible

Camera purchase

and storage

Administration Fall 2007 See budget

9. Estimate Cost to Implement and Maintain

(Please see budget provided)


Parties Roles

Administration Overall oversight and Coordination of Comprehensive Assessment Plan

Coordination of initial and ongoing training

Ongoing Communication and Awareness with Education Community,

e.g. school district partners, flyers/DVD preparation and distribution

Faculty Curriculum modification and implementation

Cohort Advisors/ Coordinators

Trained Scorers (optional)

Deliver Remediation Workshops

CA-TPA

Coordinator/

Staff

Organize data collection, analysis, storage

Report Assessment Findings

Create timeline and deadlines for data collection in the comprehensive

assessment system

Organize storage, distribution, etc. of cameras

12. Advantages in Adopting the Selected System

Exists as a total package: assessment, scoring, training, validity study done by state

Tasks, with attention to ELs, students with disabilities, differentiated instruction, and

assessment, while providing access to the core curriculum is directly aligned with the

socially just and equitable aspects of our Vision and Mission Statement.

o CA-TPA provides the COE with an opportunity to measure more directly how our

candidates are able to demonstrate their authentic potential to teach all learners.

CA-TPA course modifications are feasible for implementation. CATs will be modified

in 511, 512, 555, 521, & 522 as specified by Tasks 1-3.

CA-TPAs are in place for Taskstream posting and evaluation.

No additional fiscal costs to students.

Minimal workload added to students.

18

All faculty are not required to become Assessors even though we are assigning,

supporting, and formatively assessing CA-TPAs.

o Trainings may be voluntary.

o Most CA-TPA evaluation will be conducted by field supervisors, master teachers,

K-12 teachers, supervisors, support providers, administrators, Retired faculty,

teachers, administrators, and other education professionals

Addressing CA-TPAs throughout the program using Taskstream which is familiar,

necessitates faculty coordination between courses and within cohorts, which could result

in a more connected program for teaching candidates.

The applicability of the Tasks 1-4 require teaching candidates to concentrate on

individual students, student engagement, and using assessment to inform instruction—all

aspects of effective teaching that may or may not occur in the present system.

Tasks 1-4 are sequential and both formative and summative wherein summative

information (Tasks 1-4) can be used as a basis for benchmarks as well as the

recommendation of candidates for credentials.

Formative CA-TPA information could be used in induction programs like BTSA.

Additional support for Advanced Student Teachers via required seminars is built in.

CA-TPA could provide us with measurable evidence of our program effectiveness.

13. Challenges

Equipment purchase and storage.

Costs (faculty compensation, on-going training, assessment coordinator, data storage,

etc.).

Adding another task and responsibility to already overwhelmed student teachers

(seminars, videotaping).

Student Teaching Placements may not be receptive to videotaping.

Creating a positive atmosphere so that all (faculty, teacher candidates, school partners)

have buy-in and believe the CA-TPA is a good direction in which to go.

Overcoming another barrier to teacher credentialing.

Faculty Workload

Student Workload

19

CA-TPA Rubrics: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-materials.html

CA-TPA Training Schedule: http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/TPA-Reg-

Flyer-date.pdf

http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-materials.html

http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/TPA-Reg-Flyer-date.pdf

http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/TPA-Reg-Flyer-date.pdf

20

PACT (Performance Assessment for California Teachers)


a. Overview

PACT consists of embedded signature assignments and a teaching event, which

combined, measure all TPEs. It is quite similar to the INTASC portfolio, which is a based

on the National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) system and is modified for beginning

teachers. It consists of artifacts, commentary (analysis), and reflection based on five

tasks:

1. Context for Learning

2. Planning

3. Instruction

4. Assessment

5. Reflection

*An additional task, which is not present in INTASC or NBCT, is an Academic

Language strand that runs across all tasks and is scored separately.

b. Key Components

1. Context for Learning: (completion of a 1 page form and 3 page commentary)

This section includes a description of class, as completed on a form. Students who

present the biggest academic language challenges are chosen as focus students. This does

not necessarily have to be ELL or Spc. Needs students, but those are preferable.

2. Planning:

The elementary version is literacy based. However, all lessons need a language objective

aimed at developing academic language, the additional strand. Planning consists of 3-5

hours of instruction. Candidates may use a lesson plan template provided or the

program‘s lesson plan template. While not specifically referenced, Wiggins and

McTighe‘s Understanding by Design/backwards planning model seems to be the

preferred planning method. Lesson plans and relevant handouts for each lesson are

included accompanied by a 5 page single spaced commentary addressing specific

prompts.

3. Instruction:

This section includes a video-taped teaching event focused on student engagement

specifically in critical thinking. The segment is about 15 minutes in length, 20 for math.

The accompanying commentary is 4 single spaced pages responding to specific prompts.

The video can be submitted electronically in one of the following forms: Quicktime, real

one, windows media player, other.

4. Assessment:

The assessment chosen must represent critical thinking and understanding. It cannot be

multiple choice or one word answer tests. The commentary analyzes student performance

in relation to student needs and learning objectives followed by the identification of next

steps in instruction for the whole class and individual students. While the analysis asks

for whole class observations and needs, two individual students are selected including

one ELL, for deeper analysis. The commentary is 5 single-spaced pages responding to

specific prompts.

21

5. Reflection:

This section includes a reflection of the teaching event, what the candidate learned and

would change. Information from daily journaling/reflection during the teaching event (3-

5 lessons/days) and reflective commentary on the instructional process are used to guide

the responses to particular prompts. The commentary includes references to specific

learning theories, motivation, etc. learned in coursework. The reflection is 3 single-

spaced pages.

The additional task, which is not present in INTASC or NBCT, is an Academic Language

strand that runs across all tasks and is scored separately. However, it must be explicit in

each task, e.g. lesson plans must have a language objective, videotaped event must

address the teaching and reinforcement of academic language, planning must include

modifications for ELL if using prepackaged curriculum, etc.

Handbooks for teaching events include the following areas: All are about 26 pages in

length.

Multiple Subject

Elementary Literacy

Elementary Math

Single Subject

English Language Arts

Mathematics

History and Soc Science

Science

World Languages

Physical Education


Two things seem apparent:

1. Students will need a great deal of support with this. It is based on National

Board/INTASC types of assessments. The thinking and reflective writing are beyond

what most novice teachers could accomplish without discussion, clarification, feedback,

etc.

2. This can not be an add-on to the current program. Students who are already

overwhelmed with the planning and preparation required for teaching can not add this

layer. All layers and performances would be adversely affected.

Implementation thoughts.

All tasks must be completed in one semester.

Multiple Subject:

There are two teaching events, literacy and mathematics. Candidates do not have to

complete both teaching events in their entirety. Candidates complete either the literacy or

the mathematics portfolio and and include at least one task from the remaining portfolio.

Senarios for implementation:

22

Candidates may be allowed to choose either the mathematics or the literacy

teaching event. If candidates are working on different portfolios, the scaffolding

through coursework may be difficult to monitor, and consistency would likely

present a curricular problem.

If the program mandates which teaching event candidates complete, we might

consider the mathematics event, since RICA, as a literacy event, continues to be

required.

Whether candidates choose or the program mandates the teaching event, one task

must be included from the remaining event, e.g. the assessment task from literacy

would be included in addition to the complete mathematics teaching event

portfolio.

If the mathematics event is chosen, it would make sense to develop a unit in

EDMS 543. EDMS 555 would require a focus on academic language scaffolding

support in the unit and lessons. Which course would support Task 1? EDMS 522

would support the added assessment task as a course requirement.

If the literacy event is chosen, the bulk of the scaffolding support would fall in

EDSS 521 and 522 where the entire responsibility for RICA already resides. The

danger is that the literacy courses become ―test prep.‖

While scaffolding can and should occur through coursework, the teaching event

must occur during the second semester of student teaching. A one-two unit

student teaching seminar would be necessary to support completion of Tasks 3, 4,

5.

Single Subject Senarios:

EDMS 541 would support the development of Tasks 1 and 2 with emphasis on

supporting academic language or special methods courses would support the

development of Task 2 with EDMS 541 focusing on support for developing

academic language and differentiating instruction in individual lesson plans.

EDSS 531 would support Tasks 3, 4, 5 and the overall completion of the

portfolio.

3. Anticipated/necessary changes to current program curriculum and assessment

practices.

Replacement of signature assignments with PACT described assignments, would

be necessary to provide scaffolding for completion of the teaching event in the

second semester‘s student teaching. This is probably not too difficult. The

unit/lesson plan required in many courses would merely use the PACT design. It

is based on a backward planning model that is currently used.

Coordination of literacy, mathematics, and teaching and learning courses would

be essential for the scaffolding necessary to cover specific parts of the

tasks/assignments.

A 1-2 unit capstone course is necessary to support students with tasks 3 and 5 and

any refinement for Tasks 1, 2, and 4. Currently in place for ICP and Single

Subject. Multiple subject and middle level could take 1 unit from EDMS 512 or

23

imbed in 512 (would require considerable changes to 512) 1 unit could be taken

from student teaching for a student teaching seminar or capstone.

PACT rubrics should probably replace current rubrics for CATS.



Student Teaching forms (TPEs and summaries) would not need to be altered.

Would student services need to be apprised of passing scores for the portfolio prior to

recommending for credentialing?

24

5. Personnel required for sustaining the system once in place.

Assessment Coordinator to create/maintain data base for collection, analysis, and

storage of assessment data.

Cohort Advisors with released time or other compensation to coordinate and

oversee curricular modifications and implementation, communicate and trouble

shoot with program and assessment coordinators.

Scorers

Remediation Specialist

6. Training Needs

a. Who will conduct the trainings?

PACT provides training for trainers for scorers. Ongoing cost is unknown.

b. Who will initially be involved in the trainings?

Events must be scored by people familiar with the content area, e.g. elementary teachers

score elementary event, secondary science teachers score secondary science events.

Program Coordinators, CSUSM faculty, Cohort Advisors, Classroom teachers, Adjunct

faculty/U.S. who are interested in scoring.

Multiple subjects 125

Single Subjects 75 (break out by subject area)

Middle Level 25

ICP 40

Total 265

Scorers can score 3 per day, according to the PACT office. To ensure validity and

reliability, 20% must be double scored, as well as those that fail or are just above passing.

c. What type of ongoing training will be required once the system is in place?

Recalibration of scorers as well as initial training of new scorers would likely be an

ongoing challenge. The cost of the training is not known at this time.


Video cameras and tripods would need to be purchased. Organizing storage,

maintenance, and distribution could be problematic. We could approach the library to see

if that could be handled by them.

25



Tasks/Activity Person(s)

Responsible

Timeline Resources Needed Benchmark

Pilot Cohorts and

faculty identified

Program

Coordinator

July 2007 Pilot Cohort

Faculty

compensation (1-2

unit course release

or overload)

Curricular

modifications

Pilot Cohort

Advisor/Faculty

August

2007

2 day retreat for

curricular planning

and modification

Course Syllabi

revised and

implemented

07-08

Create Data

Collection and

Analysis System

Assessment

Coordinator

In consultation with

Program

Coordinators

October

2007

Hire Assessment

Coordinator

(teaching

experience may be

necessary)

Comprehensive

assessment

system

identified. Data

Collection

System in

place.

Scorers Identified

and Trained (pilot

cohort faculty and

others)

Associate Dean

Cohort Advisor

Fall

2007?

(whenever

PACT has

training)

Training costs At least 1

scorer per

cohort trained.

Bimonthly Pilot

Cohort Faculty

Meetings

Cohort Advisor On-going Implementation

Benchmarks

met and

modified as

needed.

Dissemination of

Comprehensive

Assessment Plan

Overview to

relevant parties

(U.S., C.T.,

faculty, district

personnel?)

Associate Dean Spring

2008

Training DVD

produced for C.T.s

and U.S.s

Incorporated into

U.S. meetings

Training DVD

completed and

distributed.

U.S. meeting

agendas

Revised

Curriculum/Course

Syllabi from Pilot

Cohorts distributed

to faculty.

Pilot Cohort

Advisor and

Faculty

March

2008

Governance

Meeting and/or

smaller Program

specific venues

No one is

hiding behind a

rock. Everyone

knows what is

going on.

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum created

Assigned/Volunteer

Faculty

May 2008 Released

Time/compensation

Remediation

Workshops

implemented

26

each semester.

Additional Scorers

identified and

trained

Associate Dean ongoing Training Costs At least 2

scorers per

cohort trained

Camera purchase

and storage

Administration? Fall 2007 $$$


Parties Roles

Administration Overall oversite and Coordination of Comprehensive Assessment Plan

Coordination of initial and ongoing training

Ongoing Communication and Awareness with Education Community,


Faculty Curriculum modification and implementation

Cohort Coordinators

Trained Scorers

Create and Deliver Remediation Workshops

Staff

(Assessment

Coordinator?)

Organize data collection, analysis, storage

Report Assessment Findings

Create timeline and deadlines for data collection in the comprehensive

assessment system

Organize storage, distribution, etc. of cameras

10. Advantages in Adopting the Selected System

Scaffolding and preparing for the Teaching Event throughout the program necessitates

faculty coordination between courses and within cohorts, which could result in a more

connected and consistent program for teaching candidates.

The in depth thinking and reflective aspects of the teaching event require teaching

candidates to concentrate on individual students, student engagement, and using

assessment to inform instruction—all aspects of effective teaching that may or may not

occur in the present system, depending upon the quality of individual student teaching

experiences.

11. Challenges

Equipment purchase and storage

Enormous Cost (faculty compensation, on-going training, assessment coordinator, etc.)

Data storage. Currently, there is no electronic storage system. SDSU is working on one

that we may be able to use. Other programs store hard copies of the portfolios.

The completion of the tasks all in the second semester of student teaching will likely be

overwhelming for already overwhelmed student teachers

Student Teaching Placements are not always receptive to student teacher-created units,

which is a requirement of the PACT portfolio.

Required aspects of the teaching event, e.g. work with ELL and Special Needs students

are not necessarily present in the 2nd

semester placement, especially in placements such

as chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics.

27

Creating a positive atmosphere so that all (faculty, teacher candidates, school partners)

view this high stakes assessment as a valuable learning event may require the hiring of an

―attitude cheerleader‖ or ―Polyanna.‖

Overcoming another barrier to teacher credentialing will necessitate the inclusion of

remediation after students complete the program.

Faculty Workload

Student Workload

12. Summary conclusions and recommendations

Attachment:

Teaching Event

Teaching Event Task What to Do What to submit

1. Context for

Learning (TPEs 7,8)

Provide relevant information about your instructional

context and your students as learners of literacy.

Context Form

Context

Commentary

2. Planning

Instruction &

Assessment (TPEs 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,

10,12)

Select a learning segment of 3-5 lessons that develops

students‘ ability to comprehend and/or compose text and

that develops their reading, writing, and use of academic

language.

Create an instruction and assessment plan for the learning

segment and write lesson plans.

Write a commentary that explains your thinking behind

the plans.

Record daily reflections, to submit in the reflection section

of the Teaching Event.

Lesson Plans for

Learning Segment

Instructional

Materials

Planning

Commentary

3. Instructing

Students &

Supporting

Learning (TPEs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,

11)

Review your plans and prepare to videotape your class.

Identify opportunities for students to use relevant skills

and strategies to comprehend and/or compose text.

Videotape the lesson you have identified.

Review the videotape to identify one or two video clips

portraying the required features of your teaching. The

total running time should not exceed 15 minutes.

Write a commentary that analyzes your teaching and your

students‘ learning in the video clip(s).

Video Clip(s)

Video Label Form

Instruction

Commentary

28

Teaching Event Task What to Do What to submit

4. Assessing

Student Learning

(TPEs 2,3,4,5,13)

Select one student assessment from the learning segment

and analyze student work using evaluative criteria (or a

rubric).

Identify three student work samples that illustrate class

trends in what students did and did not understand.

Write a commentary that analyzes the extent to which the

class met the standards/objectives, analyzes the individual

learning of two students represented in the work samples,

and identifies next steps in instruction.

Student Work

Samples

Evaluative Criteria

or Rubric

Assessment

Commentary

5. Reflecting on

Teaching &

Learning

(TPEs 7,8,13)

Provide your daily reflections.

Write a commentary about what you learned from

teaching this learning segment.

Daily Reflections

Reflective

Commentary

Scoring Rubrics PLANNING - ESTABLISHING A BALANCED INSTRUCTIONAL FOCUS

EL1: How do the plans structure student learning of skills and strategies

to comprehend and/or compose text?

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

The standards,

learning objectives,

learning tasks, and

assessments either

have no central

literacy focus or a

one-dimensional

literacy focus (e.g.,

solely on

facts/conventions/sk

ills or strategies for

comprehending or

composing text, but

not both).

OR

The literacy focus is

on applications in

another content area,

but the plans do

little to continue to

develop students’

abilities to

The standards,

learning objectives,

learning tasks, and

assessments have an

overall literacy

focus that is

primarily one-

dimensional (e.g.,

facts/conventions/sk

ills or strategies for

comprehending or

composing text).

The focus includes

vague connections between facts,

conventions, skills,

and strategies for

interpreting or

conveying meaning

in literacy.

Learning tasks or the

set of assessment

tasks focus on

multiple dimensions

of literacy learning

through clear

connections among

facts/conventions/ski

lls, and strategies for

comprehending

and/or composing

text.

A progression of

learning tasks and

assessments is

planned to build

understanding of the

central literacy focus

of the learning

segment.

Both learning tasks

and the set of

assessment tasks focus on multiple

dimensions of

literacy learning

through clear

connections among

facts/conventions/ski

lls, and strategies for

comprehending

and/or composing

text.

A progression of

learning tasks and

assessments guides

students to build

deep

understandings of

the central literacy

focus of the learning

segment.

29

comprehend and/or

compose text.

PLANNING - MAKING CONTENT ACCESSIBLE

EL2: How do the plans make the curriculum accessible to the

students in the class?


Plans refer to

students‘ experiential

backgrounds1,

interests, or prior

learning2 that have

little or no

relationship to the

learning segment‘s

literacy

standards/objectives.

OR

There are significant

content inaccuracies in plans that will lead

to student

misunderstandings.

Plans draw on

students‘ experiential

backgrounds,

interests, or prior

learning to help

students reach the


literacy


Plans for the

implementation of

learning tasks include

support to help

students who often

struggle with the

content.

Plans draw on

students‘ prior

learning as well as

experiential

backgrounds or

interests to help

students reach the


literacy


Plans for

implementation of

learning tasks include

scaffolding or other

structured forms of

support3 to provide

access to grade-level literacy


All components

of Level 3 plus:

Plans include

well-

integrated instructional

strategies that

are tailored to

address a

variety of

specific

student

learning

needs.

PLANNING - DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS

EL3: What opportunities do students have to demonstrate their

understanding of the standards/objectives?


There are limited

opportunities

provided for

students to learn

what is measured

by one or more

assessments.

OR

There is a

significant

mismatch between

one or more

Opportunities are

provided for

students to learn

what is assessed.

It is not clear that

the assessment of

one or more

literacy

standards/objective

s go beyond

surface-level understandings.

Opportunities are

provided for

students to learn

what is assessed.

The assessments

allow students to

show some depth

of understanding

or skill with respect

to the literacy

standards/objectives

.

All components of

Level 3 plus:

Assessments are

modified, adapted,

and/or designed to

allow students with

special needs

opportunities to

demonstrate

understandings and

skills relative to the

literacy

1 Cultural, linguistic, social, economic

2 In or out of school

3 Such as multiple ways of representing content; modeling strategies; providing graphic organizers,

rubrics, or sample work; strategic groupings of students.

30

assessment

instruments or

methods and the

literacy

standards/objective

s being assessed.

The assessments of

literacy access both

productive

(speaking/writing)

and receptive

(listening/reading)

modalities to

monitor student

understanding.


.

31

INSTRUCTION - ENGAGING STUDENTS IN LEARNING

EL4: How does the candidate actively engage students in their own

understanding of skills and strategies to comprehend and/or

compose text?


Students have

limited

opportunities in

the clip(s) to

engage with

content in ways

likely to improve

their literacy skills

and strategies.

OR

The clip(s) do not

focus on specific

literacy skills and

strategies to

comprehend and/or

compose text.

OR

Classroom

management is

problematic and

student behavior

interferes with

learning.

Strategies for

intellectual

engagement seen in

the clip(s) offer

opportunities for

students to

develop and/or

apply specific

literacy skills and

strategies to

comprehend and/or

compose text.

Strategies for

intellectual

engagement seen in

the clip(s) offer

structured

opportunities for

students to actively

develop and/or

apply specific

literacy skills and

strategies to

comprehend and/or

compose text.

These strategies

reflect attention to

student

characteristics,

learning needs,

and/or language

needs.

Strategies for

intellectual

engagement seen in

the clip(s) offer

structured

opportunities for

students to actively

develop and/or

apply specific

literacy skills and

strategies.

These strategies are

explicit, and

clearly reflect

attention to

students with

diverse

characteristics,

learning needs,

and/or language

needs.

INSTRUCTION - MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING DURING

INSTRUCTION

EL5: How does the candidate monitor student learning during

instruction and respond to student questions, comments, and

needs?


The candidate

primarily monitors

student understanding

of literacy by asking

surface-level

questions and

evaluating student

responses as correct

or incorrect.

Candidate responses

are not likely to

promote student

The candidate

monitors student

understanding of

literacy by

eliciting student

responses that require thinking.

Candidate

responses

represent

reasonable

attempts to

The candidate

monitors student

understanding of

literacy by

eliciting student

responses that

require thinking.

Candidate

responses build on

student input to

guide

improvement of

All components of

Level 3 plus:

The candidate

elicits

explanations of

student thinking,

and uses these

explanations to

further the

understanding of

all students.

32

thinking.

OR

Materials or candidate

responses include

significant

inaccuracies in

literacy content that

will lead to student

misunderstandings.

improve student

use of literacy

skills and

strategies.

students‘ use of

literacy skills or

strategies.

33

ASSESSMENT - ANALYZING STUDENT WORK FROM AN ASSESSMENT

EL6: How does the candidate demonstrate an understanding of

student performance with respect to standards/objectives?


The criteria/rubric

and analysis have

little connection with the identified

literacy standards/objectives.

OR

Student work

samples do not

support the

conclusions in the

analysis.

The criteria/rubric

and analysis focus

on what students

did right or wrong in relationship to

identified literacy


The analysis of

whole class

performance

describes some

differences in levels of student learning

for the content

assessed.

The criteria/rubric

and analysis focus

on patterns of

student errors,

skills, and

understandings to

analyze student

learning in relation

to literacy


Specific patterns are identified for

individuals or

subgroup(s) in

addition to the whole

class.

All components of

Level 3 plus:

The

criteria/rubric

and analysis

focus on partial

understandings as well.

The analysis is

clear and

detailed.

ASSESSMENT - USING ASSESSMENT TO INFORM TEACHING

EL7: How does the candidate use the analysis of student learning to

propose next steps in instruction?


Next steps are

vaguely related

to or not aligned

with the

identified student

needs.

OR

Next steps are not

described in

sufficient detail to understand

them.

OR

Next steps are

based on

inaccurate

conclusions about student

learning from the

assessment

analysis.

Next steps focus

on improving

student

performance

through general

support that

addresses some

identified student

needs.

Next steps are

based on accurate

conclusions about

student

performance on

the assessment.

Next steps focus

on improving

student

performance

through targeted

support to

individuals and

groups to address

specific identified

needs.

Next steps are

based on whole

class patterns of

performance and

some patterns

for individuals

and/or

subgroups.

All components of Level 3

plus:

Next steps demonstrate

a strong understanding

of both the identified

content and language

standards/objectives and of individual

students and/or

subgroups.

34

REFLECTION - MONITORING STUDENT PROGRESS

EL8: How does the candidate monitor student learning and make

appropriate adjustments in instruction during the learning

segment?


Daily reflections

indicate

inconsistent

monitoring of

student

performance.

There is limited

evidence of

adjusting instruction to

address student

confusion or to

challenge

students.

Daily reflections

identify what

students could or

could not do

within each

lesson.

Adjustments to

instruction are

focused on

improving

directions for

learning tasks,

time

management, or

reteaching.

Daily reflections

indicate monitoring of

student progress toward meeting the


for the learning

segment.

Adjustments to

instruction are focused

on addressing some

individual and

collective learning

needs.

All components of

Level 3 plus:

Adjustments to

instruction are

focused on

deepening key

skills,

understanding of

literacy concepts,

and/or thinking

processes.

REFLECTION - REFLECTING ON LEARNING

EL9: How does the candidate use research, theory, and reflections

on teaching and learning to guide practice?


Reflections on

teaching practice are

erroneously

supported through

a significant

misapplication of

theory or research

principles.

OR

Changes in teaching

practice are not

based on

reasonable

assumptions about

how student learning

was affected by

planning,

instruction, or

assessment

decisions.

Reflections on

teaching practice

are consistent with

principles from

theory and

research.

Changes in

teaching practice

are based on

reasonable

assumptions about

how student

learning was

affected by

planning,

instruction, or

assessment

decisions.

Reflections on

teaching practice

are based on sound

knowledge of

research and

theory linked to

knowledge of

students in the

class.

Changes in

teaching practice

are based on

reasonable

assumptions about

how student

learning was

affected by

planning,

instruction, or

assessment

decisions.

Reflections on

teaching practice

integrate sound

knowledge of

research and

theory about

effective teaching

practice,

knowledge of

students in the

class, and

knowledge of

content.

Changes in

teaching practice

are specific and

strategic to

improve individual

and collective student

understanding of

standards/ob-

35

jectives.

36

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE - UNDERSTANDING LANGUAGE DEMANDS

EL10: How does the candidate describe student language

development in relation to the language demands of the

learning tasks and assessments?


The description of

the language

demands of

learning tasks and

assessments is

superficial.

Moving beyond

obvious language

errors, the

candidate‘s

description of

language demands

focuses primarily

on vocabulary that

students may find

challenging and

indicates why.

The candidate

identifies language

demands of the

learning tasks and

assessments that go

beyond vocabulary

to include specific

text types4 or other

language

demands5 that are

challenging for

individual students

or groups of

students.

The candidate

discusses students‘

language strengths

as well as needs in

relation to the

language demands

of the learning tasks

and assessments.

The candidate

identifies language

demands of the

learning tasks and

assessments that go

beyond vocabulary

to include specific

text types or other

language demands

that are challenging

for individual

students or groups

of students.

The candidate

discusses students‘

strengths and needs

in relation to these

language demands

and articulates

what makes those particular text types

or other demands

challenging for

particular

individuals or

groups of students.

4 Text types can be oral (e.g., formal presentations, role play activities, partner or group discussions)

and/or written (e.g., sequences of story events, pattern sentences, writing narratives). 5 These other demands might include understanding a teacher‘s oral presentation of information,

responding to a question in class, listening to or reading directions, sharing information orally with a

partner, or compiling information on a graphic organizer.

37

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE - SUPPORTING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE

DEVELOPMENT

EL11: How do the candidate’s planning, instruction, and

assessment support academic language development?


The candidate gives

little support to

students to meet the

language demands

of the learning tasks.

OR

Language and/or

content is

oversimplified to

the point of

significantly limiting

student access to the

core content of the

curriculum.

The candidate

attempts to use

scaffolding or

other support6 to

address identified

gaps between

students‘ current

language abilities

and the language

demands of the

learning tasks and

assessments.

These supports

provide

immediate access

to content without

providing

opportunities for

students to develop

further language

proficiency.

The candidate‘s use

of scaffolding or

other support

provides access to

core content while

also providing

explicit models,

opportunities for

practice, and

feedback for

students to develop

further language

proficiency related

to the demands of

the learning tasks

and assessments.

The candidate‘s use

of scaffolding or

other support

provides access to

core content while

also providing

opportunities for

students to develop

further language

proficiency related

to the demands of

the learning tasks

and assessments.

The candidate

articulates why the instructional

strategies chosen

are likely to support specific

aspects of students‘

language

development.

Questions:

Must the video-taped lesson be from the planning section? Can it be in different

semesters?

Do multiple subject candidates have to complete both literacy and math teaching events?

6 Such support might include one or more of the following: modeling of strategies for comprehending or

composing texts; explicit communication of the expected features of oral or written texts (e.g., using

rubrics, models, and frames); use of strategies that provide visual representations of content while

promoting literacy development (e.g., graphic organizers); vocabulary development techniques (context

cues, categorization, analysis of word parts, etc.); opportunities to work together with students with

different kinds of language and literacy skills, etc.

38

Analysis of California State University Fresno‘s

Alternative Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)

This analysis of Fresno‘s Alternative TPA plan contains an executive summary report of

their TPA, as well as a description of how it could be implemented in our College of

Education, which consist of the context of our College of Education, anticipated program

curriculum and assessment changes, anticipated form and process changes, personnel

required to sustain the system once in place, training needs, equipment needs,

implementation plan, maintenance plan, faculty staff, and administrative roles,

advantages, challenges, summary conclusions and recommendations.

Executive Summary Report of Cal State University Fresno Alternative TPA

Overview

California State University Fresno has developed an alternative Teacher Performance

Assessment (TPA) and has submitted it to CTC for review. California State University

Fresno has two credential programs: Multiple Subject and Single Subject. Their

Alternative Teacher Performance Assessment consists of four separate tasks that are

embedded in the fieldwork. The assessment tasks were adapted from the Renaissance

Teacher Work Sample developed by the Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher

Quality, a Title II federally funded project. The proposed Fresno Alternative TPA is

scheduled for review on June 25, 2007. This option is only available if it is approved by

the CTC. If it is approved we will need to explore any additional requirements for

implementation.

Coursework

California State University Fresno has different coursework requirements for their two

programs. Students earning a multiple subject credential take three semesters of

coursework. Students earning a single subject credential take two semesters of

coursework.

Fieldwork

Field experiences compliment coursework at California State University Fresno. Students

are in field experience placements at the same time they are taking coursework. Students

in the Multiple Subject Program participate in three separate field experiences in three

different semesters. Students in the Single Subject Program earn their credential in two

semesters and engage in two field experiences.

39

Assessment

At California State University Fresno, four key performance tasks systematically assess

Multiple and Single Subject candidates‘ knowledge and skills across all Teacher

Performance Expectations (TPEs). Each TPE is evaluated as least twice, and through two

different performance modes (for example, observation of teaching and written work).

Three of the four tasks were adapted from existing practices or from instruments that

were modified to be more credible measures. The Teaching Sample Project was adapted

from the Renaissance Teacher Work Sample developed by the Renaissance Partnership

for Improving Teacher Quality, a Title II federally funded project.

Key Components

There are four key components to the Alternative TPA plan:

Task 1: Field Experience

Task 2: Site Visitation

Task 3: Holistic Proficiency Project

Task 4: Teaching Sample Project.

The tasks are implemented in a sequence in their fieldwork throughout the credential

program.

This analysis summarizes the task, describes the administration, score, implementation,

maintenance, advantages and challenges. The timeline for implemented in our College of

Education is provided in #8: Implementation Plan.

a. Field Experience Assessment Task

This is the initial assessment task of the four. It assesses the candidate‘s ability to analyze

a lesson plan for students in fourth to eighth grade classroom with a significant number of

English Learners. Content focuses on social studies and language arts instructional

strategies. This is implemented in the first stage of student teaching. Students are required

to be assessed like a traditional exam.

This is basically a Lesson Plan Analysis Exam. This is only implemented in the Multiple

Subject Program. The Single Subject Program does not have this assessment task. (But it

could be implemented for all of our programs using their Multiple Subject model.)

Administering and Scoring Field Experience

Field Experience Task would require training of how to implement the exam as well as

how to score the exam based on the rubric. (For more detail see Field Experience Rubric

through CSUF.)

Field Experience Implementation

Implementation Plan would include revising coursework, assessment supervision,

scoring, re-administering assessment, and rescoring. Coursework would need to be

revised to include the analysis of a lesson plan. In the Multiple, Middle and Single

Subject programs we could implement in the first semester fieldwork during the

observations period. Coursework that students are taking during the observation period

EDMS/EDMI/EDSS 511, 521 or 555 could support students to prepare for the exam.

This assessment task is administered much like an exam, where student are required to

40

report to a specific room and complete a task independently within a specific time frame.

CSUSM personnel would need to supervise the assessment exam and any re-

administration of additional exam assessments. Like all other assessment tasks CSUSM

personnel would need to be trained to score Field Experience (lesson plan analysis exam)

task.

Field Experience Maintenance

Maintenance Plan would include all of the above as well as recalibration training. But

details of this will depend on CTC‘s approval and instructions.

Field Experience Advantages

Although we directly address lesson planning in our coursework across the board, we

may not be consistent in our assessment practice. Teacher candidates may receive

multiple opportunities to revise lesson plans and as a result are not completing all tasks

until prompted. The benefit of integrating this assessment into our program is that we can

assist teacher candidates as well as faculty and supervisors to see strengths and

weaknesses of the teacher candidates‘ lesson planning prior to their student teaching

experience.

Field Experience Challenges

Integration of the Field Experience assessment task will require supervision of the test

like assessment. This would be a new activity for our college and will take creativity to

imagine when and how it could be done with sufficient coverage.

b. Site Visitation

The Site Visitation Project assesses the candidate‘s ability to plan and implement

instruction. This assessment takes place in the beginning student teaching placement. The

Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) specifically being evaluated are:

TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction

TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments

TPE 4: Making Content Accessible

TPE 5: Student Engagement

TPE 6: Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices

TPE 11: Social Environment

TPE 13: Professional Growth

For this project teacher candidates plan and implement a lesson that can be observed by

University Supervisor and Master Teacher. There are four components of the site

visitation:

- lesson planning on a specific topic or skill

- detailed lesson plan

- observation

- reflection

41

The lesson should be part of a block of ongoing instruction focused on a specific topic or

skill related to California Content Standards in the subject/grade level. The lesson plan

and classroom instruction should take into account students‘ current skills in the content

area and must include ways to meet the state-adopted subject matter standards. This

project also requires a reflection in which teacher candidates are to consider their

experiences teaching this lesson.

Administering and Scoring Site Visitation

University Supervisor scores the site visitation for each of the Teaching Performance

Expectations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 13 will be based on the rubric designed for this project.

This is scored during the beginning student teaching experience. (For more detail see Site

Visitation Rubric available through CSUF.)

Site Visitation Implementation

The implementation plan would include training of supervisors and cooperating teachers

to be scorers. Our supervisors and cooperating teacher will need to include in the student

teaching evaluation a formal evaluation of a lesson planning topic, lesson plan,

observation and reflection. Changes we would need to make include:

- Training of supervisors

- Training of cooperating teachers

- Incorporation of evaluation form

- Rubric for site visitation

This could be implemented in student teaching in the all programs: multiple, middle,

single, special education and concurrent.

Site Visitation Maintenance



Site Visitation Advantages

This process would tighten up our student teaching observations and evaluations. Our

NCATE review made recommendations that we work on our preparation of cooperating

teachers and be more consistent in our expectations and implementation of student

teaching. This task would force us to do just that. This would not only benefit our teacher

candidates by developing clearer expectations and supports, but we would also strengthen

our relationships with teachers and schools in our area.

Site Visitation Challenges

The most difficult part of Task 2: Site Visitation is that the students will not be in their

coursework and will not have faculty support this endeavor. Training all supervisors and

cooperating teachers will be an overwhelming task. In addition there is reason to believe

that the implementation of this may vary and it will not be a consistent assessment

because of the multiple supervisors and cooperating teachers that will be involved in such

assessment.

42

c. Holistic Proficiency Project

This project assesses the candidate‘s ability to demonstrate and/or document a variety of

teaching responsibilities over the course of a semester. Candidates collect artifacts

throughout the semester that document proficiency related to specified TPEs. In addition,

they write a self-assessment that summarizes the evidence and connects it to the TPEs

being assessed.

Using Taskstream teacher candidates upload 3-4 artifacts that are evidence of their

meeting the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE). For each TPE teacher candidates

write a holistic discussion (2 paragraph) self assessing how they have met the TPE.

The project requires documentation of professional performance during final student

teaching/internship. There are four sources of documentation: (a) self-assessment with

respect to the required TPEs, (b) artifacts of teaching, (c) general observations of lesson

preparation and teaching, and (d) content area teaching observations.

Self-Assessments

The TaskStream Directed Response Folio (DRF) for this project includes a form for

recording teacher candidates‘ self-assessment with respect to each of the eight TPEs

assessed for this project. For each TPE, teacher candidates‘ summarize evidence that

documents their growing expertise, using specific examples, not generalized statements.

Candidate responses refer to artifacts and are one to two paragraphs in length.

Artifacts

Teacher candidates upload 3-4 artifacts to help their University Supervisor understand

how they have meet the TPE requirement as well as to support what they have described

in their self-assessment. University Supervisors provide guidance for teacher candidates

and may request specific artifacts to be included.

General Observations

The University Supervisors and Master/Cooperating Teachers observe teacher

candidate‘s preparation and delivery of instruction throughout the semester. For the

purposes of this assessment, they will be documenting competency in the following

areas:

TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments

TPE 5: Student Engagement

TPE 7: Teaching English Learners

TPE 8: Learning About Students

TPE 10: Instructional Time


University Supervisor evaluates the teacher candidates in each of the above TPEs.

43

Content Area Observations

Specific observations will be conducted in the delivery of a prepared lesson in teacher

candidates‘ content area. Observation evaluation includes teacher candidates‘ actions

and how the students respond to the lesson instruction. This is a demonstration of both

teaching and learning. University Supervisor‘s content area observation will focus on:

Specific Pedagogical Skills in a Content Area (TPE 1).

Scoring of Holistic Proficiency Project

The completed set of self-assessments, artifacts, and observed teaching performances will

be scored by the University Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher. Scores on the

performance assessment will be made available to teacher candidates on TaskStream

when the evaluation is completed. Unsuccessful candidates will have an opportunity to

remedy any portions rated as inadequate.

Holistic Proficiency Project Implementation

Our supervisors will need to include in the student teaching evaluation a review all of the

TPEs on Taskstream. Changes we would need to make include:



- Revision of our TPE narrative format

- Require 3-4 artifacts for each TPE

- Use a different rubric for TPE artifacts

- Use a different rubric for TPE narrative

- Use a different TPE evaluation form

- Use a rubric for the Holistic Proficiency Project provided by Fresno.

This process could be followed in a similar fashion for all programs: multiple, middle,

single, special education and concurrent. (For more detail see Holistic Proficiency Project

Rubric form CSUF.)

Holistic Proficiency Project Maintenance



Holistic Proficiency Project Advantages

This process is a combination of our TPE Taskstream Assessment and our Student

Teaching TPE Evaluation form. This could be an advantage because we are familiar with

some of the key components of this task. We could see more connections of student

learning by combining Taskstream TPEs and Student Teaching TPEs.

Holistic Proficiency Project Challenges

Although we are familiar with some of the key components in this task we have not put

high stakes on the assessment and linked the tasks as one assessment. A disadvantage is

that scoring all the tasks is overwhelming. To expect a supervisor to be responsible for all

may discourage supervisors from working at CSUSM. In addition this may not be a task

our faculty would want to pass over to supervisors.

44

d. Teaching Sample Project

This assessment task takes place in the final stage of Advanced Student Teaching. In this

project, candidates plan and teach a one-to-four-week unit, assess students‘ learning

related to the unit, and document their teaching and their students‘ learning. The project

is designed to measure Teaching Process Standards that have been identified by research

and best practice as a fundamental to improving student learning. The sections of the

project and the process measured in each of the following areas: students in context,

content analysis and learning outcomes, assessment plan, design of instruction,

instructional decision-making, analysis of student learning and reflection and self-

evaluation.

Students in Context

In this section teacher candidates:

- Identify community, district, and school factors that impact the teaching-learning

process.

- Identify student characteristics and classroom factors that influence instruction

and assessment.

- Discuss the implications of these characteristics and factors for instructional

planning and assessment.

- Develop a classroom management plan appropriate for students and the classroom

context.

Content Analysis and Learning Outcomes


- Analyze the content in this unit.

- Set the learning outcomes for the unit, and show how they connect to state-

adopted or challenge-standards.

- Provide a rationale for choice of learning outcomes.

Assessment Plan


- Select, adapt or develop assessments to assist in planning the unit, monitoring

student progress, and measuring student learning.

- Describe the assessments, scoring, and evaluation criteria for one of learning

outcomes.

- Give an overview and rationale of assessments for another outcome.

- Describe formative assessments.

Design for Instruction


- Summarize the results of pre-assessment and indicate how the results will

influence planning.

- Provide an overview of unit showing how lessons relate to the learning outcomes.

- Describe and provide a rationale for three unit lessons that demonstrate ability to

plan appropriate instruction related to students‘ characteristics and needs, and the

specific learning context.

- Describe use of technology in the unit.

45

Instructional Decision-Making


- Provide two examples of instructional decision-making based on students‘

learning or responses.

Analysis of Student Learning


- Analyze assessment data, including the relationship between pre-assessments and

summative assessments, and the information gained from formative assessments

to determine students‘ progress related to one learning outcome.

- Use visual representations and narrative to communicate the performance of the

whole class and two subgroups within the class.

Reflection and Self-Evaluation In this section teacher candidates:

- Reflect on performance as a teacher and describe effective instructional strategies

and suggestions for improving practice linked to student learning results.

- Identify future goals and actions for professional growth related to experiences

planning and teaching this unit and assessing students‘ learning.

Scoring Teaching Sample Project

The Teaching Sample Project will be scored by the University Supervisor. Each section

of the project should be submitted for evaluation on TaskStream according to the

requirements of the program. Scores for Teaching Performance Expectations 1, 2, 3, 4,

6C, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be based on the scoring rubric designed for this

project. Each section must be satisfactorily completed to fulfill the requirements of the

program. Unsuccessful candidates will have an opportunity to rewrite the portions rated

as inadequate. Scores on the performance assessment will be made available when

evaluation is completed.

The teacher candidate uses information about the students, their individual

characteristics and differences as well as information about the learning-teaching

context to set learning outcomes and to plan instruction and assessment. The teacher

candidate provides evidence of how they met the Teaching Performance Expectations:

TPE 6C: Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices

TPE 8: Learning About Students

TPE 10: Instructional Time


Each supervisor would score the Teaching Sample Project on Taskstream in addition to

the observations. (For more detail see Teaching Sample Project Rubric from CSUF.)

Teaching Sample Project Implementation

The implementation plan would include training of supervisors and cooperating teachers

to be scorers. Our supervisors and cooperating teacher will need to include in the student

46

teaching evaluation a formal Taskstream based evaluation of the seven areas students in

context, content analysis and learning outcomes, assessment plan, design of instruction,

instructional decision-making, analysis of student learning and reflection and self-

evaluation. Changes we would need to make include:



- Incorporation of Taskstream in student teaching

- Rubric for Teaching Sample Project

This could be implemented in student teaching in the all programs: multiple, middle,

single, special education and concurrent.

Teaching Sample Project Maintenance



Teaching Sample Project Advantages

This process of combining Taskstream Assessment and Student Teaching may make our

evaluation process more systematic and documented. In addition it may improve our

evaluation process. We could see more connections of student learning by combining

Taskstream and Student Teaching.

Teaching Sample Project Challenges

Although we require teacher candidates to show performance in all of the areas covered

in Teaching Sample Project, we are not systematic about the evaluation. A disadvantage

is that the tasks together are overwhelming to evaluate on Taskstream as well as

supervise on school sites. To expect a supervisor to be responsible for all may discourage

supervisors from working at CSUSM. In addition this may not be a task our faculty

would want to pass over to supervisors.


System Component Flexibility

The Fresno Alternative TPA plan is flexible in that the students will have opportunities

over the course of their program to be assessed in all four areas. If a student needs more

time for one task there is time before the end of the program to repeat a task. (This is not

the case in PACT – where all assessments must be implemented in Advanced Student

Teaching.)

System Component Rigidity

The Fresno Alternative TPA plan is rigid in that all four tasks are linked with fieldwork.

As well as there is a specific sequence for implementation of the assessment. Each

program (multiple, middle, single and special education) will need to implement the

assessment just like it is implemented at Fresno. This prevents us from implementing the

tasks anywhere but in the fieldwork. (This is the greatest challenge of this TPA plan

because students will not be in courses with direct contact with faculty instructors when

they are working on their TPA.)

47

3. Anticipated/Necessary Changes to Current Program Curriculum and Assessment

- Coordinate courses to cover specific types of preparation for Tasks 1-4.

o Task 1: Build supports in first semester of the program coursework for

Field Experience Assessment in EDMS/EDMI/EDSS 511, 521 and 555.

The instruction would include preparation for writing lesson plans:

objective standards, instructional steps, assessment, differentiation for

special education and English Language Learners.

o Task 2: Build supports into coursework to support teacher candidates in

their Site Visitation Assessment.

o Task 3: Continue to support teacher candidates in using Taskstream, and

provide opportunities for students to use their critical assessment tasks in

their fieldwork and their Holistic Proficiency Project.

o Task 4: Support teacher candidates to develop a unit plan that they can

implement in the advanced student teaching and their Teaching Sample

Project.

- Replacement assignments in Student Teaching w/ the TPA Alternative Tasks 2-4.

o Task 2 – Structure the current observations to use Site Visitation

Assessment.

o Task 3 – Replace TPE evaluation (and form) in Student Teaching with

Holistic Proficiency Project, a Taskstream Based evaluation. (This is

much like what we currently do, but now it would be assessed in fieldwork

not coursework.)

o Task 4 – Replace the advanced student teaching expectations with

Teaching Sample Project

- Develop a TPA support system for teacher candidates during fieldwork where

students are provided instruction and practice for TPAs. The practice could take

the form of a writing workshop. This could take the shape of

o A Capstone course (much like what is currently in place for ICP)

o Student teaching seminars provided as a compliment to fieldwork, this

could be done in cohorts with 1-2 instructors or as an additional support

provided by university supervisors

o Another option is for one course each semester to be a 15 week course and

would provide the support throughout student teaching. (In first semester

this could be done in EDMS/EDMI/EDSS 511. In second semester this

could be done in EDMS/EDMI 512 and in EDSS 531.)



- All coursework syllabi would need to include TPA Alternative guidelines and

expectations.

- Task 1: Field Experience Assessment would need to be created for the

examination.

48

- Student Teaching forms (TPEs and summaries) would not need to be altered to

reflect all 4 TPA tasks.

- TPA Alternative rubrics would replace current rubrics for Student Teaching.

- Student Teaching Handbook would need to be revised to reflect the TPA

Alternative process and rubrics.

- Student services would need to be apprised of passing scores for the TPA

Alternative prior to recommending for credentialing.

- A mechanism would need to be in place to communicate progress at each TPA

Alternative assessment level.

5. Personnel required for sustaining the system once in place

- Assessment Coordinator to create/maintain database for collection, analysis, and

storage of assessment data.

- Cohort Advisors with released time or other compensation to coordinate and

oversee curricular modifications and implementation, communicate and trouble

shoot with program and assessment coordinators.

- Instructors and Supervisors to pilot the program in a Single Subject and a

Multiple Subject cohort during the 2007-2008 academic year.

- Field Experience Assessment Supervisors to implement the exam for Task 1.

- Scorers

- Remediation Specialist

- Personnel to communicate with students, faculty and supervisors about teacher

candidates progress on TPA Alternative Tasks.

6. Training Needs

Since this is an Alternative TPA and it is in the process of being reviewed and the

training process and costs are unknown. Based on the TPA and PACT it is predicted that

the four assessment tasks in Fresno‘s Alternative TPA will require people familiar with

the content area, e.g. elementary teachers and teacher preparation faculty, secondary

subject area teachers and teacher preparation faculty…

Approval of Fresno‘s TPA Alternative may indicate training protocol for all interested in

considering this assessment plan.

Each teacher candidate completes four TPA tasks that may take from 30 minutes to 1

hour for scoring, totaling approximately 4 hours per candidate. Possibly 20% will need

rescoring. At an average of 5 hours per candidate with almost 400 candidates a year,

scoring may take 2000 hours.

Ongoing training will be required once the system is in place just like all other TPA

plans. The ongoing training will include: recalibration of scorers, new faculty,

coordinators and cohort advisors. The TPA Coordinators would be responsible for

training/preparation of scorers, faculty instructors, supervisors, support staff and teacher

candidates.

49


- Paperwork

o Assessment instructions

o Task 1: Field Experience Exam

o Student teaching assessment forms

o Revised Student Teaching Handbook

o Materials to prepare students

o Training Materials for Scorers

- Taskstream supports

- Data collection supports to

o Organize storage

o Maintain storage of data

o Distribute data



Tasks- Activity Person(s)

Responsible Timeline Resources Needed Benchmark

Identify the Pilot

Cohorts and

Faculty

Program

Coordinator July

2007 Pilot Cohort Faculty

compensation (1-2

unit course release or

overload)

Schedule dates for

2007-2008 meetings

Curricular

modifications Pilot Cohort

Advisor/Faculty August

2007 2 day retreat for

curricular planning

and modification

Course Syllabi &

Student Teaching

Handbook revised &

implemented 07-08

Create Data

Collection and

Analysis System

Assessment

Coordinator

In consultation

with Program

Coordinators

October

2007 Hire Assessment

Coordinator Comprehensive

assessment system

identified.

Data Collection System

in place.

Scorers

Identified &

Trained (pilot

cohort faculty

and others)

Associate Dean &

Cohort Advisor As early as

August 2007

(see training

schedule)

Travel costs At least 1 scorer per

cohort trained.

Bimonthly Pilot

Cohort Faculty

Meetings

Cohort Advisor On-going

bimonthly

meetings

2007-2008

Pilot Cohort Faculty

compensation (1-2

unit course release or

overload)

Implementation

Benchmarks met and

modified as needed.

Dissemination of

Comprehensive

Assessment Plan

Overview to

relevant parties

(U.S., C.T.,

faculty, district

personnel?)

Associate Dean in

consultation with

TPA coordinator

March 2008 Training DVD

produced for C.T.s

and U.S.s

Incorporated into

U.S. meetings

Training DVD

completed and

distributed.

U.S. meeting agendas

50

Revised

Curriculum-

Course Syllabi

from Pilot

Cohorts

distributed to

faculty.

Pilot Cohort

Advisor and

Faculty

March 2008 Governance Meeting

and/or smaller

Program specific

venues

All members of

community either

trained, lined-up for

training, or otherwise

on-board.

Review

Alternative TPA

implementation

that will begin in

2008-2009

Associate Dean &

TPA Coordinator May 2008

Retreat Governance Meeting Each member of

community understands

their role in Alternative

TPA and is prepared to

begin TPA in Fall 2008.

Prepare

Curriculum for

Cooperating

Teachers and

Supervisors

Seminar

TPA Coordinator

& Assigned or

Volunteer Faculty

August 2007

& December

2008

Release

Time/compensation Cooperating Teacher

and University

Supervisor Alternative

TPA Seminar

Educate

Cooperating

Teachers and

Supervisors

about Alternative

TPA process

TPA Coordinator

& Assigned or

Volunteer Faculty

August 2007

& January

2008

Release

Time/compensation Cooperating Teacher

and University

Supervisor Alternative

TPA Seminar

Task 1: Field

Experience

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

Curriculum

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty

& TPA

coordinator

August-

September

2007

Released

Time/compensation Remediation

Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 1: Field

Experience

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

TPA Coordinator September

2007 Preparation

Materials, TPA

Coordinator,

Seminar

Task 1: Field

Experience

Assessment

Cohort

Instructors, TPA

Coordinator, TPA

Staff, TPA scorers

Fall 2007

Possibly in

early

October

Copies of

Assessment, Funds

for Administering

Test, Scorers, Re-

administration of

Test

Assessment

Implemented & Scored

Task 1: Field

Experience

Assessment

Scored

TPA Coordinator,

Associate Dean,

Cohort Advisor,

& Scorers

October

2007 Cost to pay scorers. At least 1 scorer per

cohort.

Task 1

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum

created

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty November

2007 Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 1: Field

Experience

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

TPA Coordinator

& Volunteer

Faculty &

Supervisors

Fall 2007 Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

51

presented

Task 2: Site

Visitation

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

Curriculum

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty

& TPA

coordinator

August-

September

2007

Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 2: Site

Visitation

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

TPA Coordinator Fall 2007 Preparation

Materials, TPA

Coordinator,

Seminar

Task 2: Site

Visitation

Assessment

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Fall 2007

Supervision Pay Assessment


Task 2: Site

Visitation

Assessment

Scored

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Fall 2007 Supervision Pay At least 1 scorer per

cohort.

2: Site Visitation

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum

created

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty Fall 2007 Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 2: Site

Visitation

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

presented

TPA Coordinator

& Volunteer

Faculty &

Supervisors

Fall 2007 Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Project

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

Curriculum

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty

& TPA

coordinator

August-

September

2007

Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Project

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

TPA Coordinator Fall 2007 &

Spring 2008 Preparation

Materials, TPA

Coordinator,

Seminar

Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Project

Assessment

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Fall 2007 &

Spring 2008 Supervision Pay Assessment


Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Project

Assessment

Scored

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Fall 2007 &

Spring 2008 Supervision Pay At least 1 scorer per

cohort.

Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty Fall 2007 &

Spring 2008 Released


Workshops

52

Project

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum

created

implemented each

semester.

Task 3: Holistic

Proficiency

Project

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

presented

TPA Coordinator

& Volunteer

Faculty &

Supervisors

Fall 2007 &



Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

Curriculum

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty

& TPA

coordinator

August-

September

2007

Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

Preparation

Seminar

TPA Coordinator Spring 2008 Preparation

Materials, TPA

Coordinator,

Seminar

Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Spring 2008 Supervision Pay Assessment


Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

Scored

TPA Coordinator

& Supervisors

(TPA scorers)

Spring 2008 Supervision Pay At least 1 scorer per

cohort.

Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

curriculum

created

Assigned -

Volunteer Faculty Spring 2008 Released


Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Task 4: Teaching

Sample Project

Assessment

Remediation

Workshop

presented

TPA Coordinator

& Volunteer

Faculty &

Supervisors



Workshops

implemented each

semester.

Additional

Scorers identified

and trained

Associate Dean

and TPA

Coordinator

ongoing Training travel costs At least 2 scorers per

cohort trained, as well

as all supervisors and

cooperative teachers.

53

9. Faculty, Staff, Administration Roles in the Ongoing Assessment System

Parties Roles

Administration - Overall oversite and coordination of Comprehensive Assessment Plan

- Coordination of initial and ongoing training

- Ongoing Communication and Awareness with Education Community,


Faculty - Curriculum modification and implementation

- Cohort Advisors/ Coordinators

- Go through Alternative TPA Score Training (optional? – voluntary?)

- Create and Deliver Remediation Workshops

TPA

Coordinator/

Staff

- Assist in curriculum modifications and implementations

- Supervise Score Training

- Supervise Field Experience Assessment Task

- Provide Alternative TPA seminars for teacher candidates

- Collect, organize, analyze, store and disseminate data

- Report Assessment Findings

- Create timeline and deadlines for data collection in the comprehensive

assessment system

- Organize storage, distribution, etc. of cameras

TPA Scorer

(Faculty and

supervisors)

- Go through Alternative TPA Score Training

- Supervise Task 1: Field Experience Assessment

- Score Task 1: Field Experience Assessment

- Re-administer Field Experience Assessment Task

- Score Alternative TPA Tasks 2-4 (Supervisors)

- Rescore Alternative TPA Tasks if necessary (Supervisors)

- Go through recalibration score training

10. Advantages in adopting the Fresno Alternative TPA

- Alternative TPA tasks, with attention to English Language Learners, students with

disabilities, differentiated instruction, and assessment, while providing access to the core

curriculum is directly aligned with the socially just and equitable aspects of our Vision

and Mission Statement.

- Alternative TPA provides the COE with an opportunity to measure more directly how our

candidates are able to demonstrate their authentic potential to teach all learners.

- Alternative TPA Task 1: Field Experience can be feasible supported in 511, 521, and

555.

- The benefit of integrating Alternative TPA Task 1: Field Experience into our program is

that we can assist teacher candidates as well as faculty and supervisors see strengths and

weaknesses of the teacher candidates‘ lesson planning prior to their student teaching

experience.

54

- Alternative TPA Task 3 is basically our approach to TPEs in Taskstream.

- Alternative TPAs are in place for Taskstream posting and evaluation.

- Articulation across courses and programs; Addressing TPAs throughout the program

using Taskstream which is familiar, necessitates faculty coordination between courses

and within cohorts, which could result in a more connected program for teaching

candidates.

- The Task 1: Field Experience will support s teacher candidates to learn how to analyze a

lesson plan and make modifications to make sure it meets student needs.

- Implementation of Task 2: Site Visitation would tighten up our student teaching

observations and evaluations. Our NCATE review made recommendations that we work

on our preparation of cooperating teachers and be more consistent in our expectations and

implementation of student teaching. This task would force us to do just that. This would

not only benefit our teacher candidates by developing clearer expectations and supports,

but we would also strengthen our relationships with teachers and schools in our area.

- Task 3: Holistic Proficiency Project Assessment is a combination of our TPE Taskstream

Assessment and our Student Teaching TPE Evaluation form. This could be an advantage

because we are familiar with some of the key components of this task. We could see

more connections of teacher candidate learning by combining Taskstream TPEs and

Student Teaching TPEs.

- Task 4: Teaching Sample Project Assessment combines Taskstream Assessment and

Student Teaching and as a result may articulate expectations more clearly to teacher

candidates and be a more systematic way to document student learning.

- There is not a videotape lesson component to any of the tasks. All evaluation of student

teaching is done face to face by supervisor and cooperating teacher.

- More support for Advanced Student Teachers via required student teaching seminars,

capstone course or a course that is 15 weeks long (possibly 511/512 for Multiple Subject

and Middle Level and 511/531 in Single Subject).

- TPA could provide us with measurable evidence of our program effectiveness.

- Mild impact to Faculty, since most responsibility falls on supervisors. All faculty may not

be required to become Assessors (Scorers) even though we are assigning, supporting, and

formatively assessing TPAs.

o Trainings could be voluntary.

o Most Alternative TPA evaluation will be conducted by field supervisors and

cooperative K-12 teachers.

55

11. Challenges in adopting the Fresno Alternative TPA

- Additive Approach in existing fieldwork. Not very feasible to implement with the current

supports in fieldwork.

- Validity and Reliability are uncertain. The Alternative TPA is under review by CTC.

Decision will be made this summer. Reliability and validity are based on local model in

Fresno. There is no guarantee that the proposed TPA will be approved or allowed to use

elsewhere. Reliability and revalidation costs are unknown.

- Support for Student Teaching: Could come in additional Student Teaching Seminars, a

capstone course in each program or a reorganization of curriculum and instructional time for

course that is 15 weeks instead of 8 weeks long (possibly 511/512 for Multiple

Subject/Middle Level and Middle Level and 511/531 in Single Subject).

- Equipment purchase and data storage.

- Costs (faculty compensation, on-going training, assessment coordinator, data storage, etc.).

- Adding another task and responsibility to already overwhelmed student teachers (seminars,

assessment, …).

- Creating a positive atmosphere so that all (faculty, teacher candidates, school partners) have

buy-in and believe the TPA is a good direction in which to go.

- Overcoming another barrier to teacher credentialing.

- Implementing Task 1: Field Experience as an examination will require supervision. This

would be a new activity for our college and will take creativity to imagine when and how it

could be done with sufficient coverage.

- The most difficult part of Task 2: Site Visitation is that the teacher candidates will not be in

their coursework and will not have faculty support this endeavor. Training all supervisors and

cooperating teachers will be an overwhelming task. In addition there is reason to believe that

the implementation of this may vary and it will not be a consistent assessment because of the

multiple supervisors and cooperating teachers that will be involved in such assessment.

- Task 3: Holistic Proficiency Project Assessment is similar to our process of evaluation TPEs.

Although we are familiar with some of the key components in this task we have not put high

stakes on the assessment and linked the tasks as one assessment. A disadvantage is that the

tasks together are overwhelming. To expect a supervisor to be responsible for all may

discourage supervisors from working at CSUSM. In addition this may not be a task our

faculty would want to pass over to supervisors.

- Task 4: Teaching Sample Project Assessment is similar to what we do in student teaching it

is not as systematic. Although we require teacher candidates to show performance in all of

56

the areas covered in Teaching Sample Project, we are not systematic about the evaluation. A

disadvantage is that the tasks together are overwhelming to evaluate on Taskstream as well as

supervise on school sites. To expect a supervisor to be responsible for all may discourage

supervisors from working at CSUSM. In addition this may not be a task our faculty would

want to pass over to supervisors.

- Faculty Workload

- Student Workload

- Student Services will be overwhelmed with documenting scores

- Supervisors will consume much of this responsibility and it may be difficult to keep or

recruit supervisors with this workload.

12. Summary Conclusions & Recommendations

It is not recommended to implement Fresno’s Alternative TPA plan at CSUSM.

Fresno‘s Alternative TPA plan has merit for supporting student teaching because it

provides benchmark assessments for teacher candidates in their fieldwork. But at the

same time this is a drawback because fieldwork in our program comes after course work

each semester. Teacher candidates are disadvantaged because they are not receiving

faculty support from their course work instructors.

Regardless of whether we chose this assessment plan, we should implement part of

Fresno’s Alternative TPA Tasks to make our program stronger.

Task 1: Field Experience will assist us to assess if teacher candidates understand all

components of a lesson, analyze if a lesson plan is appropriate and make revisions to

make sure student needs are met. If this task were done in first semester, teacher

candidates would be more prepared for lesson planning and beginning student teaching.

Implementation of the preparation of supervisors and cooperating teachers in Task 2: Site

Visitation and Task 4: Teaching Sample Project would tighten up our student teaching

observations and evaluations. As per our NCATE review we need to provide more

articulation and training for key student teaching personnel (our cooperative teachers and

supervisors). Although Task 2 and 4 require a substantial amount of work the training

component is a strong model we could adapt to make our programs stronger. This would

support our articulation with key personnel involved in student teaching.

We currently are implementing Task 3: Holistic Assessment in the form of our

Taskstream TPE assessments. This implementation would merely require us to be more

consistent in implementing the TPEs and we could help s teacher candidates see how the

TPEs are connected to student teaching.

teacher performance assessment system analysislynx.csusm.edu/.../tpataskforcereportjuly30.pdf ·...

Documents