-: Back in session, and we'll begin with Jessica giving us
an overview, go ahead Jessica.
-: Thank you, Dr. Kelly, I was sharing during the break,
I was expecting to begin this item when the sun might've
been setting, so this is incredibly exciting too,
to see the sun all the way up in the sky
while we're having this discussion this afternoon.
Board item twenty-five is a discussion of edTPA
as a certification exam for teacher certification.
As you all are well aware,
we provide an update on the edTPA pilot implementation
at each of your SBEC meetings.
And at this meeting,
we would love to discuss the conclusion of the edTPA pilot
and discuss next steps after the edTPA pilot,
I will name Board first that after our last discussion
in October, where we signaled that we would be bringing
forward a discussion at this meeting about next steps,
at the conclusion of the edTPA pilot,
staff did receive some stakeholder feedback
that stakeholders were interested in discussing additional
options for pedagogy exams for teacher certification.
So given us, it was incredibly convenient.
We had an upcoming IPAC meeting.
And so the focus of that IPAC meeting was explicitly
on edTPA, and at that IPAC meeting,
we invited members of the IPAC to also present on additional
alternative options for pedagogy assessments.
We had two IPAC members present on alternative options
at that time.
And we've actually invited two folks to come up and share
invited testimony specifically related to alternative
options that they've presented either to the IPAC
or more broadly to the field.
So Dr. Ward from Texas Wesleyan University
and doctors, Edmondson and Ellis from Sam Houston
State University have been invited as invited testimony
to present on alternative options.
As you can also see, we still have a large number
of audience members here.
And that's because we've got a good number of folks
registered for public testimony today
to provide their perspective and insight on edTPA.
And so with that, the Board often in these circumstances
puts the public testimony at the start of the item
to really give you an opportunity to really understand
the full scope of stakeholder feedback.
So after invited testimony, we'll be asking for public
testimony to share, and then I will come back and share
a little bit more discussion around some of the options
for certain sort of certification exams,
then a little reflection on the edTPA pilot,
discuss some of the draft implementation plans
that were included within the item
and discuss some next steps.
Kelly: All right, thank you, Jessica.
Jessica: Absolutely.
Kelly: I mean, if you've got the order figured out.
Man: (indistinct) Today because of the number
of speakers (indistinct).
Kelly: More ways than one.
What was I saying?
And do you have the number of speakers we're going to
slightly compress the time from three minutes to speaker
to two minutes to speaker, so Judith let's proceed.
Judith: (indistinct)
Kelly: Yes.
Jessica: Actually, if I may,
before Judith calls at our firsT-TESS fire,
'cause I know we do have one person registered
for public testimony before invited testimony as well.
I did just want to name, I recognize there's a lot of paper
on Board member desks at this point.
And so I do have in the rainbow colored folders,
there is a green folder that's specifically documents
related to edTPA, so if you want to, you can come
sort of shuffle your papers to the side.
And this is one we'll be referencing for the remainder
of the day today and did just want to orient before we call
up that public testimony and invited testimony that included
within the folder, there is a synthesis of the written
testimony, we had a pretty large number of folks submit
written testimony as well.
So I thought that might be helpful to orient you to,
as you're also listening to public testimony.
And then another document that I think it's helpful
to also keep handing it at this time.
We've also included in the folder,
a frequently asked questions or responses document.
This may be a helpful document just to have with you
throughout the public testimony as well.
So just wanted to orient you towards some of the documents
in that folder.
Now I will be quiet and let the stakeholders share.
Woman: Sheena Salsido, Teach Plus Texus.
-: Hello, good afternoon.
Before I begin, I would like to disrespectfully ask
to receive all three of the minutes
that were on the SBEC website.
I'm from Odessa, Texas,
and I traveled a long way and lift a large group of eighth
graders, I'm not learning US history today.
And I would just really be honored to take all three minutes
if you would, humbly obliged me.
Kelly: Sorry, okay, oh yes, okay.
-: Awesome, thank you, thank you very much.
Good afternoon distinguished members of SBEC.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Sheena Salsito and I'm an eighth grade US history
teacher in Ector County ISD in Odessa, Texas.
I currently serve
as a Teach Plus Texas senior policy fellow.
I'm an alternatively certified teacher who despite easily
passing the PPR was grossly unprepared for the realities of
the classroom, I'm here today in complete support of edTPA.
Ector County ISD sits in the heart of the West Texas oil
patch and is one of the most significant contributors to oil
and gas production in the United States.
Our district has the additional challenges of a mobile
population of immigrant students, transplant students,
significant teacher vacancies and many title one campuses.
The rise and inevitable fall of the oil and gas industry
also creates a unique opportunity for second career teachers
like myself to join the profession,
but with a lack of adequate training,
lack of coaching and a certification exam of the PPR
that doesn't actually measure readiness,
teachers are put into classrooms wholly unprepared,
as an alternatively certified teacher,
I understood what was required of me during my clinical
teaching year, I passed the content exam with ease,
completed a year's worth of modules and trainings.
I received however,
minimal feedback from my program mentor about my lesson
plans and my actual classroom teaching.
I had no idea how to effectively manage a classroom,
how to properly differentiate lessons
or how to engage my students.
Despite my desire to be a great teacher, I wanted to quit.
I understood how to do it,
but the theory was simply not enough to be successful
in teaching my students.
When I asked how to best prepare for the PPR.
I was advised by colleagues to pretend that I had never been
in a real classroom.
The PPR is you see is assessed as if the students
have a perfectly equitable learning environment,
fully supportive families, helpful administrators,
and a school culture that students
noT-TESS scores come first.
So while this does not accurately reflect the realities
of the classrooms and my district in order to pass the PPR,
I needed to pretend that the year of experience I had
was irrelevant, I passed the PPR on the first try,
but as educators, we know that student does not master
a skill because they got the correct answer
on a multiple choice exam.
This is why we continue to spiral in standards.
We encourage collaboration and we give them many
opportunities to demonstrate mastery.
My support for FCPA comes directly from my experience
as an alternatively certified teacher and more rigorous
performance assessment process will hold teacher
preparations programs accountable for better preparing
our teacher candidates.
It will allow us to coach up our teacher candidates
to prevent the demoralization of being overwhelmed
and leaving a passion driven career,
which ultimately costs our students
as they deal with the revolving door
of inexperienced teachers.
Adopting edTPA will increase quality by ensuring prospective
teachers put the theory into actual practice
by performing the duties of a teacher
in a real Texas classroom.
I urge you to adopt edTPA and consider the 32,000 students
at Ector County ISD who deserved the highest quality
of teacher, thank you again for your time.
And I'm happy now to answer any questions you might have.
Kelly: Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
-: Thank you Dr. Kelly,
Dr. Kelly, with our invited testimony,
we have given the provision that they have seven minutes
to share their invited testimony.
And each one of our presenter groups has included there.
They have sides as well that are included for you within
this PowerPoint, so you can see their visuals too.
So I'll turn it over to Judith to call upon (indistinct).
-: By way of clarification Board over the last couple
of years, we've also had interest expressed
by Sam Houston State, but in this particular case,
the input wasn't received until after the deadline.
So we kind of compromised and said,
we'll give you some time to present an update.
So that's what we're looking at.
So Jessica or our first speaker.
-: Thank you, Dr. Kelly,
Dr. Ward is our first speaker.
-: Good afternoon, Dr. Kelly and SBEC members,
as Jessica mentioned, my name is Dr. Elizabeth Ward,
and I'm an Associate Professor of Education
and Director of Field Experiences
at Texas Wesleyan University.
And I also serve on the IPAC Board.
I want to express thanks to Dr. Kelly and the TEA staff
for this opportunity to present some options related
to the PPR exam.
Since we have a number of new SBEC members,
I thought it might be informative to look back at the 2017
request for proposal when TEA began exploring a replacement
for the PPR,
I would like to highlight a few items from this slide.
First, the RFP provided vendors,
the opportunity to propose a constructed response PPR
and or a performance assessment.
Second, the RFP stated that the new exam should reflect
the Educator Code of Ethics.
Finally, the new exam should improve the ability to identify
and select candidates with the requisite knowledge, skills,
and abilities for successful classroom practice.
This final statement implies that the current PPR does not
do a very good job at identifying candidates with the skills
to be successful in the classroom.
However, a team of researchers from the research
for educator equity and excellence center
at Texas State University has been researching the PPR
and its ability to predict educational outcomes.
They're finding show that the PPR positively predicts
the principal evaluation of first-year teachers
and the academic growth of students.
When we look at the Reedy findings and you actually
have a what's on this slide, in addition to a policy brief,
we see that for principal evaluation,
the current PPR positively predicts principal evaluations
of new teacher quality and effectiveness.
Principals evaluate new teachers who have higher PPR scores
as being of higher quality and more effective
than teachers with lower PPR scores.
And these results are based on approximately
70,000 principal evaluations.
And it is the second strongest predictor
of the principal evaluation.
When we look at student academic achievement and growth,
the current PPR positively predict student academic
achievement and growth in math and English in those grades
that have been evaluated so far,
students taught by teachers with higher PPR scores
learned significantly more than students taught
by the teachers with lower PPR scores.
And as I mentioned, I have the policy draft statement.
So I know there's a lot of information on this slide.
And so I'd like to pause here for just a moment
to see if you have any questions about the data
from this study.
Kelly: Yes, Commissioner Oser.
-: There we go, yes, thank you for sharing this Dr. Ward,
but for this policy brief, can you share a little bit more
about where this has been published or reviewed
for the study.
-: (indistinct) Now, as to particular specifics
about the study since I did not personally conduct
the research of Dr. Van (indistinct) is here in the room.
If you have specific questions about the study, I would,
if you would allow me to invite him up,
I'd be happy to have him come up and answer specific
questions about the study.
-: We might let you continue,
and then we can come up with additional questions.
-: So if we were to look at implementation options related
to the PPR, we could keep the current option one
would be to keep the current PPR cut score at 240.
It's important to note that this study shows that teachers
with a score of two 40 still show academic growth,
and there would be no increased cost to candidates
and no impact on the teacher pipeline.
Option two would be for TEA to model the impact
of rating PPR cut scores on teacher production,
and make a recommendation to the Commissioner
about possibly raising that score.
It's important to note that while this would have no
increased cost of candidates,
it would have some negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
And then finally, option three would be to negotiate
and begin development of constructed response items
for the PPR with the test vendor,
develop a timeline for phasing in the constructed response
PPR, similar to what we did for the science
of teaching reading exam.
This would result in a slight increased cost for candidates
and luckily some negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
If we want to just consider what this exam might look like,
here's what the development process could be.
I think it's important to note that we would not have
to start building this test from scratch.
We could continue to use the existing PPR item test bank
and not new item development process that already exists
for selected response items.
We would need to determine the structure
of the new constructed response exam.
How many selected response items would it have
and how many constructed response items would it have?
It's important to note that Pearson currently,
already has constructed response pedagogy exams in use.
So they already have these types of questions
and scoring rubrics in place,
specifically the NES has two constructed response items,
a case study related to assessment instruction
and the learning environment and a work product related
to the professional environment.
And then finally, we would need to determine the timeline
for implementation in standard setting.
If we compare the edTPA and the PPR,
we find that independent research shows that the PPR
positively predicts principal evaluations of teachers
and student academic growth.
Whereas independent research on edTPA shows a negative
impact of student achievement and teacher production.
The REDEE research indicates that EPP focus on effective
candidate preparation and the knowledge and skills measured
on the PPR has a positive impact on the candidates
effectiveness in the classroom and their students' academic
achievement, the PPR is fully aligned
with this SBEC standards, including the code of ethics.
Whereas the edTPA does not assess the code of ethics,
continuing the use of the PPR,
even if modified to a constructed response exam,
is much less costly for candidates
than implementing the edTPA.
And so I would invite any questions that you have
regarding this presentation.
Kelly: Yes, Mr. Coleman.
-: So Dr. Ward, just so I'm clear,
is it your suggestion or your recommendation that there's be
some combination going forward as an alternative,
a combination, including possibly raising the cut score,
incorporating a constructed response component.
Was there anything else other than those two?
-: Well, if we go back to the December,
2018 meeting with edTPA was first discussed at SBEC
on the solution or a possible solution at that time
was a constructive response PPR coupled with some type
of portfolio that was tied to the T-TESSs,
evaluation instruments that's currently in use.
And that's actually where my colleagues from Sam Houston
are gonna present what a curricular based performance
assessment could look like.
-: [Coleman Okay, all right, okay, thanks.
-: Well, just work my way through it
is a lot of deep thought there.
One thing that edTPA touts is that the PPR is a sort
of a one for all, all grade levels, all subjects, et cetera.
The PPR is, whereas at TPA is more specific to grade level
and subjects, how would would you answer that.
-: Well, my colleagues from Sam Houston, really,
this is meant to be a joint proposal that we would do
something with the PPR and then embed in two to eight,
a curricular requirement for a performance assessment prior
to the issuance of licenses.
-: That's a polite way of saying, wait we'll answer.
-: I don't want to steal their thunder.
They've worked really hard on their presentation.
Kelly: Thank you, ma'am.
-: Doctor, do you have data on all the grade levels,
so they're like grade seven, grade eight and algebra one
in regards to PBR?
So is this the only grade levels
or do you have data in all the grade levels?
-: Imagine I'm looking at one point cleaning the data set
for 1.4 to 1.8 million students and running this would be
a very extensive process.
So these are the score, I'm sorry, the exams,
the end of course exams or the stories that have been
assessed so far.
I do know that Dr. Van (indistinct) does plan to look
at other certification areas,
but this is where they started.
-: And what kind of teachers,
these are veteran teachers teaching this students?
-: These are teachers that are currently in classrooms
that are giving the star and in the course exchange.
So they are teachers in Texas public schools that have a PPR
score that they can use to identify them.
And the students that were on that they taught
and then administered the exams to.
-: Okay, because I guess my concern is how do we know that,
how do we establish code session when we could be,
maybe they have a great teacher in sixth grade or fifth
grade, how do we know that that was the impact
versus having great teachers previous to getting
to these grade levels?
-: I think you're asking questions that since I did not
actually conduct the study,
I do think it would be appropriate because I think
this is a very important issue that we need to discuss.
We have not fully looked at the PPR.
So I'd like to invite Dr. Van (indistinct) to ask these
very specific answer, these very specific questions,
if you're okay with that.
Man: Okay.
Kelly: Per (indistinct) request, yes please.
Van: It keeps going off, okay, thank you.
Hello, thank you, my name is Jim Van (indistinct)
I'm an Associate Professor of Secondary Education
and a researcher in the REDEE Center at Texas State
that is working on this policy brief that you have
in front of you.
The way in which the specific analysis that is looking
at student academic growth was done is we accounted
for how the student had performed in the prior year
and looked at how well they did in the current year.
And when they were taught by teachers who had higher PPR
scores, the students did better.
So if you think about students,
we're acquainting students based on their prior performance.
And if this group of students had a teacher
with a higher PPR score,
they would have scored better than the current year
than the students, so the growth they experience
was greater the higher the PPR score was.
Does that answer your question?
Okay, thank you.
-: Yes, Dr. Kelney Oeser.
-: I haven't yet received my PhD.
So I'll just take deputy Commissioner.
Thank you, Dr. Van (indistinct) and it's good to see you
again, one of the recommendations does say that there's some
negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
And then when I look at the brief,
it says it's about 1500 to 2000 candidates per year
by raising the cut score at the suggested level,
which seems like a pretty significant impact
on the teacher pipeline, but what I don't see
is did you see a differential impact based on demographics
of teachers when you modeled this as well?
-: And I think it's important to be clear,
the recommendation is not to go to 250.
That was just one of the things that we looked at
was considering what would happen if we went to 250
as a hypothetical, the suggestion being put forward
is that the agency model changes in the cut score,
if that would be the direction the Board would like to go
and then figure out what the impacts are.
When I looked at the change from 240 to 250 as a cut score,
there was a decrease of about 9.5% of the number of teachers
that passed on the first attempt,
which was less than the 14% for edTPA,
negative impact on the pipeline.
But there was also a decrease in the teachers of color
passing that there was a greater impact on teachers of color
than there were on white teachers by changing
the cut score from 240 to 250.
So that's why the recommendation was for the agency
to model where is the appropriate cut score
if that's the decision the Board makes.
Kelney: Thank you.
Kelly: Ms. McDonald.
-: Hi, Jim, also, I don't have my doctorate,
but you and I have had over a decade of experience
talking about data and research.
And so I just have one kind of question that I'm sure
you can answer.
So one of my frustrations with the PPR is that the scores
are, the passing rates are so high,
so many teachers do well.
And you, and I kind of talked about this earlier.
So you gave me a little bit of a heads up on to get this
question ready, but wouldn't the scores be so high
that they would be closely correlated to positive outcomes
to show anything but a positive outcome.
Like if the score is so high internet differentiation
there to assign anything but positive outcomes.
-: Great question, and if we were to eliminate all of the non
passing scores from the analysis, oh, thank you.
If we were to eliminate all of the non passing scores
from the analysis, then we would run into that situation.
But that's not what we did.
What we did is we took everyone who took the test
and looked at their first attempt because they're allowed
to have multiple attempts, we took their first attempt,
so we could compare apples to apples to see what their
preparation was for taking it the first time.
And so we're not restricting the range to only those
who passed, we're looking at the entire range
of the first attempt for those.
-: Sure, but when isn't the passing rate still
in the 90s?
-: Yeah, it was about, I think it was about 92%
of last time average across the last 10 years.
McDonald: I mean, that's.
-: Oh, sorry, it keeps going off.
It was about 92% average over the last two years.
-: So 92 is pretty close to a 100.
-: Yeah, but within that range of 240 to 300,
there's still a lot of variability in scores.
So there was the 8% who fail,
but then there's the 60 point difference from passing
to a perfect score that is taken into consideration
in the model.
So it's a robust finding and applying the principle
finding with the principal evaluation scores,
the type of edprep program that they went to
was the strongest predictor of how the principals evaluated
the teachers, teachers from traditional programs
have the highest overall ratings from the principals.
Second strongest predictor was the score that they got
on the PPR, so somebody who just barely passed
with a 240, got a lower rating on average
from their principals for quality and effectiveness
than somebody who scored a 260.
And they had a lower rating than somebody who scored
at the 275 or 280 range.
Yeah, you're welcome.
Kelly: Very good, all right, any other questions
for the doc?
All right, let's move on to our next step.
-: May I finish one final statement.
So as I turned my presentation over or the podium over
to my colleagues from Sam Houston,
I really just want to point out that neither the PPR
or the edTPA addresses the day one readiness issues
for the 60% of candidates who are first-year teachers
in the classroom on probationary or intern certificate.
So I want you to keep that piece in mind as you listen
to the presentation from Sam Houston.
Thank you so much for your time.
-: Stacy Edmondson and Christina Ellis.
Stacy: All right, good afternoon.
So yes, thank you very much for allowing us
to be back here with you today.
We were with you this time last year,
although we were all talking heads
in the Hollywood squares version,
we're very excited to be here today, I'm Stacy Edmondson,
and this is my colleague Dr. Christina Ellis.
So for the last three years, we've been leading,
what's been commonly referred to as the T-TESS pilot.
So today we want to describe a little bit about the work
that we've done over the last year in particular,
talk about our findings,
and then really describe how we think the performance
assessment in this capacity as an important part
of teacher preparation curriculum.
And I really want to start first by saying how much
we a 100% completely agree with Commissioner Morav's
comments this morning regarding the importance
of high quality teacher preparation and the impact
that has not just on our teachers,
but on our students in K-12 settings.
Ellis: Excellent.
Stacy: Oh, yep, sorry.
Ellis: So I'd like to start with providing
an overview of where we've been for the last three years.
It's hard to believe it,
but three years ago was the first time that Stacy and I
got to come and talk with you about the way performance
assessment can be used to improve teacher preparation.
Shortly thereafter, we began piloting T-TESS with our 14
edprep partners until our work was interrupted
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, we were resilient and we picked up right where
we left off when schools reopened in fall of 2020,
that December, we were honored to spend an hour and a half
with you discussing our work and your recommendations
for improving on what we had already done.
We took your recommendations and spent the first part
of 2021 creating a portfolio assessment
that we now call the T-TESS Teacher Candidate Assessment
of Readiness, which we launched in August.
Before moving on to our findings,
I would be remiss if I didn't thank each of our
participating EPPs for generously giving their time,
energy and ideas to make this pilot possible.
Stacy: So an important component of our study
was to ensure that the participants we had engaged with
reflected the diversity and breadth of Texas CPPs.
So to that end,
we have participants from large public universities,
small private universities, HBCUs, rural,
urban, suburban EPPs, for profit non-profit alternative
certification providers and everything from very large
to very small programs.
Our participants also represent almost every university
system in Texas.
In spring 2021, 253 candidate videos
were externally reviewed by or externally reviewed
to determine inter-rater reliability of assigned field
supervisor T-TESS observations, 21 external evaluators,
all T-TESS trained appraisers were paid a stipend
to review each candidates video and independently score
the candidates teaching using the T-TESS rubric.
These scores were then compared to this corresponding
evaluations provided by the candidates respective field
supervisor, and the results indicated that not only
is T-TESS a valid measure of teacher candidate performance,
but statistically field supervisor scores
are indeed a reliable measure of candidate performance,
when compared with external evaluators.
To that end, I would like to invite Susan Skidmore,
who ran the independence statistical analyses
to talk a little bit about what those numbers mean.
Susan: Thank You, Stacy.
Two indices here provide insight into the reliability
of the scores to understand the extent to which
the evaluators were able to consistently rate the candidates
and index of their inter-rater reliability was used, ICC.
And you can see on the table on the right that the ICC
values are provided by item.
And the corresponding interpretation is provided there
as well, on the table on your left,
you see the Chromebox alpha,
and that is a measure of internal consistency,
which was used to provide the average degree of association
between all possible pairs.
So that whole totality of these results indicate
that supervisors were able to reliably assess
teacher-candidate performance at the item level
and by dimension.
Ellis: After reviewing our findings from 2020, 2021,
and your recommendations we created and launched the T-TESS
teacher candidate assessment of readiness,
which was based on an existing portfolio assessment.
We had used at Sam Houston for five years.
We expanded that portfolio to include expectations
that by you all and TEA staff, and also aligned it
to the TEA room, I mean the T-TESS rubric.
Teacher-candidates who complete this assessment
submit a portfolio of authentic artifacts that demonstrate
their competence, including lesson plans,
videos of themselves, teaching student work samples,
feedback given to students, analysis of student learning,
and self-reflection of their practice.
These portfolios are then scored by both the candidates,
field supervisor, and we will also have an external
evaluator rate them.
So the inter-rater reliability can be analyzed yet again,
this, we will collect approximately 200 portfolios
and expect to collect another 250 in the spring.
We also added three EPS to our pilot,
findings from this work will be available in summer 2022,
based on our pilots findings, thus far,
the thorough literature review we've conducted
and our professional experiences,
we recommend that the Board adopt performance assessment
as a mandatory component of teacher preparation curriculum
and consider revising the PPR in light of the testimony
you've heard today.
Creating this recommendation has been no easy feat,
throughout its creation, we have sought input
from stakeholders from all backgrounds
to ensure that what we propose to you is feasible for EPPs
of all sizes and configurations,
and that it will improve the day one readiness
of all teacher candidates.
To that end, we developed a succinct letter included
in your packet that outlines our concerns
and proposed solutions.
To date, we have received nearly 250 signatures
on this letter, including the Association
of Texas Professional Educators,
the Texas Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers
and the list goes on and I'll let you read them
because I see the one minute signal.
Most importantly, we receive signatures from educators
working in over a 100 school districts
in teacher preparation programs.
As this letter demonstrates our proposal is widely supported
by the people who have the greatest interest
in a well-prepared teacher workforce.
I do want to point out that as a curricular requirement,
the performance assessment must be successfully completed
prior to issuing a standard intern or probationary
certificate, they're requiring performance assessment.
Prior to any certification we can improve the day one
readiness of all novice teachers,
including the 60% of teachers who teach Texas students
before they complete their pedagogy exams.
Dr. Kelly, will you allow us to finish our presentation?
We have one more slide, thank you.
For these teachers, changing the certification exam
will do nothing to improve their ability to instruct
students on day one.
However, implementing performance assessment
prior to entering the classroom will necessitate expanding
the number of field experience hours,
their candidates complete before becoming teachers
of record, which can be shown to improve teachers
self-efficacy retention and pedagogical skill.
This morning, Commissioner Morav drew a parallel
to how we prepare doctors and rightfully so.
Teaching is a noble profession that should be regarded
as highly as medicine or law.
However, unlike medicine or law, Texas currently allows
teachers to formally enter the profession
with very little practice.
In Texas, the majority of teachers enter classrooms
with only 30 hours of experience working in schools.
That's less than one full workweek,
by requiring this type of structured performance assessment
as a curricular component for preparation,
you ensure him an important first step in improving
the outcomes for all novice teachers and their students.
Stacy: And the last slide, so I'll be quick,
but in order for T-TESS to be used consistently across EPPs
and across teacher-candidates,
as a meaningful performance assessment of candidate
readiness and portfolio authentic teaching is needed
inclusive of video recorded lessons in real time,
content and grade band specific to the candidates
area of certification.
The portfolio in corresponding artifacts must include
evidence of planning instruction, the learning environment,
professional pedagogical responsibilities,
assessment and ethics of the EPP.
The preparation programs should be formally accountable
for a statistically appropriate number of external reviews
to ensure continued reliability of the performance.
Each EPP should set an approved passing standard
in conjunction with their advisory Board subject to agency
approval, and candidates must be provided specific targeted
feedback that is appropriate for proving their teacher
performance, because this assessment is internally evaluated
the corresponding feedback cabins in a timely,
more immediate fashion.
Candidates who do not meet the passing standard
will not be allowed to move forward in the certification
process, though, they will have the opportunity to resubmit
additional attempts to pass.
Preparation programs will be accountable for their scores,
the process, and the provision of the reliability data
via external review as part of their five-year formal review
with TEA, this accountability is consequential
for EPPs to remain in good standing.
Through this process, candidate candidates are accountable
and supported through authentic, reliable, valid,
and meaningful evaluation and EPPs
are likewise accountable for their candidates progress,
readiness, and performance.
So we are glad to answer questions and we look forward
to sharing the fall and spring data
from this report as well.
Kelly: Alright, Mr. Coleman, yes, sir.
-: Dr. Ellis, good afternoon.
I'm sensing a theme here,
but at least three times during your presentation,
you mentioned day one readiness and also Dr. Ward
mentioned day one readiness, really briefly,
if you could distinguish or differ between how this model,
this T-TESS model, the modified PPR,
how does it make an educator ready on day one
as compared to edTPA?
-: Okay, thank you for asking that.
I think that's a really important distinction.
So the way that ed GPA has been proposed to you
is that it would be a requirement before a standard
or probationary certificate.
That means teachers are allowed to enter the classroom
for an entire year before completing their edTPA portfolio.
For the majority of teachers who choose that route
into the classroom, that means they would start doing it
probably in the spring.
If I'm an alternatively prepared teacher,
I likely need some practice before I'm ready to put
my edTPA portfolio together.
And so I'm not doing it until around spring break.
Therefore I was a high school teacher,
I regularly instructed 190 students a year.
So I've touched 190 students before I'd even take made
my first attempt on edTPA.
What we proposed to you today is that they have to show
their readiness before they're allowed
in front of any children.
-: Just one other follow-up question, if I may, Dr. Kelly,
this we'll do the art to the scoring.
I mean, we've mentioned a portfolio component
with your model, your suggestion here edTPA is understanding
portfolio component as well,
whose scores the portfolio we'll do are going to take your,
or a model or your pilot versus who scores edTPA?
-: Sure, with edTPA, those are all external scores,
because they are it's part of the certification license exam
with these, they are scored internally by their supervisor
by their program and then a sample of that is also
sent to external evaluators who are T-TESS appraisers
certified in Texas.
And that is to, again, ensure that that reliability
is consistent over time.
-: So the T-TESS scores are certified in Texas.
What about the external scores with regard to edTPA?
Are they outside of Texas?
Are they certified?
-: They're hired by Pearson.
So I really can't speak to that, but they,
there is no requirement for them to be Texas certified
or T-TESS informed.
Coleman: Okay thank you.
-: Yes, Ms. Streepey.
-: Thank you for your help.
I was wondering on this teacher candidate assessment
of readiness, you said it's content and grade band specific.
Do you already have those outlined and are you already
grading those per those or is that something that's coming?
-: Sure, it's content and grade pants specific
because it takes place while they're in their field
components of their preparation program,
which are also great band and content specific.
And so there's not a separate T-TESS rubric
depending on what grade level you're in,
but your placement is specific to that.
And therefore your evaluation is likewise specific.
And the feedback you receive is specific to that content
in grade band area.
-: Okay, and may I follow up?
So, why don't we right at this moment?
Is this the first?
-: Sure we did it in the spring, but we had not,
we had just received the feedback from this meeting last
year about adding the portfolio components.
And so we developed those components last spring.
So last spring with the external evaluation,
it was just the video of their teaching,
but not the full portfolio of artifacts.
And so this fall, we have both,
we'll have the videos of their teaching
and the corresponding portfolio and artifacts
that go with that.
(indistinct)
Yes, no, that did happen based on the videos from spring.
And so the reliability data that were presented earlier
are from those 253 videos.
And we did have all of those externally evaluated
the videos from the spring.
Kelly: Yes, Dr. Rodriguez
-: Thank you, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Edmonson and Dr. Ellis.
Thank you very much for the work you've completed
over this period of time.
It is definitely an undertaking, right?
So thank you for your service to the entire profession
in the state by providing this information.
I'd like a little bit more clarification to understand,
just to make sure I'm following.
So the video I'm assuming is scored with the T-TESS rubric,
is that correct?
So I imagine that the evaluators have to undergo T-TESS
training so that there is calibration and inter-rater
reliability of those videos, okay.
And in terms of the portfolio,
can you elaborate a little bit more
on what you are proposing in terms of,
are you proposing that ETPs develop their own portfolio
component or are you thinking of standard components
required for everyone across the state?
And then can you elaborate a little bit on the scoring
of the portfolio, I'm not very clear on that part.
I understand the scoring of the video,
but I don't know of whether it would be via rubrics
or how would that take place?
-: Sure, and the short answer is yes.
When you said, is it either or, it's yes.
To both of those, but Christina, if you'd like,
I'll let you explain a little bit more on that.
-: Sure, I probably should have brought a pen with me up here
so I could write down your questions.
I think your first question, I'm sorry.
Would you want me what's your first question was your second
question is sticking out in my head.
-: The first question was about the video and the T-TESS
rubric, so that's a yes and yes, yes, yes, yes.
On the portfolio, are you suggesting a common portfolio
with common requirements across all EPS in the state
so that it, or are you proposing that each EPP
develop their own portfolio company?
-: So we have provided in the packet that was handed out
to you suggested rule texts for Chapter two to eight
that you can look at that does not require a specific
portfolio, however, Dr. Edmondson and I have worked
really hard to establish the technology and the processes
to allow any edprep program that wanted to participate
with the T-TESS portfolio we developed to do so.
And so I do believe that there are some educator preparation
programs that are already in a place where they could
facilitate this themselves.
However, it would be a very large undertaking
for programs that are not already doing something like this.
And so we are here to help them part of the work that
(indistinct) need to do.
-: Yeah, and I'll add to that.
I think if I'm understanding your question correctly,
it's will there be, do all the portfolios across the state.
Would they look just like this
when they have these exact components?
And so my broad, yes,
was there will be required components.
And they're based on the standards that this Board
had put forward as expectations.
Will EPPs have the agility to tailor that to local needs.
I would say that's a yes as well.
So there would be common elements that would be required,
particularly if it were in rule, that everyone would do,
but locally EPPs could add to that,
if they wanted to add to that.
-: And may I ask some follow-up questions.
Would there be some common rubrics required or something
similar to score the portfolios?
-: So we are using the T-TESS rubrics to score the portfolio
-: As well.
-: Yes, so similar to, if you are a T-TESS appraiser,
I know many of you are when you sit down
and do your summative evaluation with any teacher,
you ask them to bring student artifacts, their lesson plans.
You've worked with them throughout the year,
and you've seen all of their artifacts, similar to that,
we're asking our teacher candidates to put together
a portfolio that demonstrates what they've been able to do
in their classrooms during a field experience
or clinical teaching and so we are able very much
like a T-TESS appraiser in a school would to review
all of those artifacts and then video of their teaching
to fill out a T-TESS rubric.
-: And finally, can you please clarify for me,
you're proposing that this be used for program completion
or for certification, and thank you for clarifying earlier
that you would expect this to be completed prior
to the final clinical experience.
I'm assuming even in a traditional program.
-: Yes, sorry, is it only two at a time?
I can't quite figure out when to turn off.
So what we're recommending is that before a standard intern
or probationary certificate is issued that the candidate
have completed this successfully.
So in a traditional program,
that means they could do it during clinical teaching,
but during an alternative certification program,
they would need to do it during their field-based experience
so that they can complete it before their teacher
of record in the classroom.
-: Yes, it with that.
And T-TESS is not designed to be a certification exam.
And so we're very conscientious of not trying
to take a square peg and fit it into a round hole
or into a round hole.
What it is designed to do is to be a formative process
that allows growth and a decision as to whether or not
this person is ready to move forward.
And so we've designed it to be part of the required
curriculum where every candidates is required
to do this before they're allowed to have
any sort of license, especially in light of the fact
that 60 plus percent of our teachers
are in classrooms before any of this happens.
This really adds value there to ensure that those candidates
have more than 30 hours of observation
before they walk in and impact children.
-: Thank you very much for those clarifications.
And I promise this is the last question
and it will be a one question not multi-part.
So then the one measure that's left or assessment
that's left for certification
would be the modified PPR, correct?
Ellis: Yes.
-: I appreciate those questions 'cause they're helping me
understand that I left behind on several of them.
So thank you, Dr. Rodriguez, somebody Commissioner deputy.
-: Yeah, that was very helpful.
So the proposal is the T-TESS for program completion
and a modified PPRS, the certification exam,
not replacing the PPR, the certification exam.
And then, but then you're adding a layer of external
evaluation on the T-TESS as the program completion,
we do a very similar type of assessment and evaluation
of systems as part of our teacher incentive allotment
that the Commissioner mentioned.
And this is quite the in-depth process for us to check
the validity of the data and make sure that the observations
are actually tracking and are they do that districts
do have this inter-rater reliability.
So I'm curious, did you model like, well, one,
do you see that as the state's role or somebody else's role
that would be doing that evaluation and checking to make
sure that the T-TESS program completion element is valid?
And did you model how much you think that would cost
based your own external reviewers and evaluation
that you were doing?
-: Yeah, the first question again, I'm so sorry.
-: I think just who do you see doing that evaluation,
external evaluation of the systems?
-: So our conception of this is that it would be the edprep
programs responsibility
to facilitate the external evaluation.
We have multiple models that we have worked with on this,
what we've used so far, our administrators who are T-TESS
appraisers to be the external,
we have also considered putting together sort of a bank
of volunteer, external evaluators who are T-TESS appraiser
trained that maybe work for school districts,
but could also work for an ed prep program,
external to where the candidate is currently being trained.
So we do have some ideas on how we could facilitate that.
We do not expect that to be a cost that the state
would carry or facilitates.
-: So edprep programs would evaluate their own externally,
or they would evaluate each other's you'll have like peers
paired up to evaluate each other's?
-: Potentially they could, if this Board or the agency
wanted to put parameters around that.
And they certainly could, but the biggest criteria would be
that those people are T-TESS appraisers,
acknowledged by the state.
And so they have that level of preparation and expertise
in what they're actually observing.
And I think not dissimilar to the disparity we have across
EPPs, you have really big EPS who have different levels
of capacity as to what that would look like.
You have very small EPS that might need to be
part of consortium's or help or things like that.
So, but I think looking at big parameters,
big picture parameters of who are those evaluators,
what does external evaluation look like?
What criteria does it have to meet?
And then the EPP is uniquely and individually accountable
for meeting those parameters and reporting that data
to the agency.
-: One thing I would notice when we had this conversation
last year, a lot of our conversation was around external
evaluation, and what role should that play,
and how much of an expense should it be?
And so when we asked Dr Skidmore to analyze our data
and the results came back,
that our field supervisors were very reliably
assessing our students.
We started having conversations with many
of the organizations that ended up signing onto our letter
and all kinds of determined that if our field supervisors
can reliably evaluate our candidates,
that the need for an external evaluator on every portfolio
is probably an expense that our candidates and the state
and edprep programs, shouldn't bear if we're already getting
reliable data on them, however,
monitoring inter-rater reliability, ongoing is important,
establishing it upfront and then leaving it alone
is not sufficient.
And so we have provided the provision that a certain
percentage of portfolios be externally evaluated.
So the inter-rater reliability
can be consistently monitored.
-: Okay, here's what I'm thinking are proposing,
just to be fair to everybody that we begin to listen
to the other speakers and to ask even of those speakers,
if they would like to do a pro con and as part of their
remarks on what's been said here with this proposal
or with edTPA, then I think, I feel like I'm way behind
on some of this I'm to catch up in my thinking.
So yes, but so my thought is is that we'll get
more of a balanced perspective as we listened to everybody.
And then we can feed it back through what we're hearing here
with these two doctors, yes Emily.
-: Thank you, Dr. Kelly, thank you for sharing the data.
It is encouraging to see the reliability of your external
evaluation for the video portion.
Can you clarify when you'll have data regarding
the reliability of evaluation of the performance assessment
portfolios, when will that data be available?
-: Sure, those that's fall semester data.
So those are just now coming in as everybody has completed
the semester, so it will take a month,
a couple of months in the spring.
So sometime early to mid spring, we should have,
I would say mid spring,
since they have to go out for external evaluation,
we should have that information.
-: Many of our participating EPPs have done
what they've turned grading parties.
They've gotten all of their field supervisors in a room
and fed them and give them drinks and whatever,
and let them score the portfolios.
(indistinct)
-: Right of course, but.
Stacy: I was about to say.
-: I didn't know, I needed to clarify that.
So many of the.
Yes, hunch non-alcoholic.
So many of the internal spores are already in,
we do no need to turn around and turn and send them out
for external reviews.
That's the portion that will take more time.
The internal sports have already gone back
to the teacher candidates.
So they've gotten the feedback from their supervisor.
-: Thank you, and then additionally,
in terms of who has the authority
and kind of responsibility,
what you're suggesting to hold locally at the EPP level,
rather than here with the SBEC would be both setting
the passing standard would be set by EPPs in collaboration
with their local one app advisory Board.
So EPP by EPP, as well as the securing and training
and validation of the external scores,
both of those components would be the responsibility
of the individual app, is that correct?
-: With approval by the agency.
So it could work either way.
We're trying to think about the context of the locally EPPs
and the districts they work with.
And so that was our thought was that that would happen
in conjunction with their advisory Board,
then subject to agency approval.
If on the flip side, the state wanted to say,
here's the passing score, here's the state bank
of external evaluators, that's great too,
but we were trying to mitigate the load on the agency
or the state and kind of defer some of that back
to the local levels, sure.
-: Okay, all right, well stay tuned
and let's to our other speakers.
Feel free to comment on what you've heard here in addition
to, so remember two minutes per speaker.
Yeah, okay, I get it, yeah.
Jessica: Dr. Gina Anderson, Texas Woman's University,
and ADOT and on deck is Dr. Alexandra Level
and Dr. Cynthia Savage.
-: Thank you, Jessica, for passing those out for me,
and good afternoon, Dr. Kelly and members of the Board.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again today
because of increased teacher shortages,
the timing of sweeping legislative mandates,
impacting educator preparation and ongoing concerns
about the edTPA as a certification exam.
I am one of 100s of stakeholders recommending
a locally scored performance assessment,
be implemented as a curriculum requirement,
and that the PPR either in its original
or an enhanced version remain the certification exam.
We further recommend that satisfactory completion
of this performance assessment be required before issuance
of any certificate, including probationary.
Prior to the COVID pandemic, Texas was already facing
a severe teacher shortage.
TEA data shows that there was nearly a 30% drop
in the number of newly certified teachers in Texas
in between 2015 and 2020.
With about one third fewer teachers in the pipeline now,
ongoing COVID concerns and the historical great resignation
taking place, teacher shortages will only get worse.
In addition, the legislature has made sweeping
and significant changes to the requirements
place on edprep programs.
As you know house bill three led to the science of teaching,
reading exam required the vast majority of our candidates,
along with all the other exams I pass,
as well as Jessica referred earlier to other house
and Senate bills that must be implemented.
There are several converging demands while we continue
to work through the challenges of increasing teacher
shortages, in order to ensure that all teacher candidates
have received quality preparation before day one
in the classroom, the most effective solution
would be to require a locally score performance assessment
as a curriculum requirement before issuance
of a probationary certificate.
This gives all of our candidates the opportunity
to integrate these legislative mandates
and the new requirements into their tools
for practice before completing an internship.
I answer any questions.
-: Dr. Alexandra Level, on deck is Dr. Cynthia Savage
and Dr. Michael Vizinga.
-: I'm new at this, I'm definitely not new.
Good afternoon, my name is Alexandra Level.
I'm the Associate Dean for Educator Preparation
at the University of North Texas in Denton.
The heart of good decision-making and business
has two critical elements, cost benefit analysis,
and the analysis of current and predicted impact,
what my business professor father called
reading the TEA leaves.
Our question today is the exact same question
as it was in February of 2020,
will adopting edTPA as a performance measure,
improve the quality of our engineering teacher force.
But now it is November of 2021.
And the factors that we need to enter into our cost benefit
equation are wildly different.
We need to look at the same question with fresh eyes,
particularly as to how
they have impacted our teacher pipeline.
The US is experiencing not just teachers,
the worst labor crisis in decades. Dr. Anderson referenced
the great retirement of the highly
educated baby boomers that we've relied upon as the backbone
of our labor force.
It's now been depleted because of COVID according
to Pew Research Center in July, August,
and September of 2020 3.2 million baby boomers retired at
the rate of 10,000 people a day,
according to the United Bureau of Labor Statistics,
their replacements, the millennials,
the individuals in the 27 to 54 age group as of March, 2021,
we're only participating in the labor force
at a rate of 62%.
And if you're a superintendent,
I don't need to tell you this. I already know this.
I'm probably giving you a worst headache by telling you
all of this.
So really in short the pipeline,
we're not just suffering from a flow in the beginning.
The pipeline is leaking at both ends.
We know that teaching right now is harder
than it has ever been.
Stress and burnout are becoming endemic to the life
of a teacher, in response to the labor shortage,
corporations and businesses are scrambling to attract
employees to fill millions of vacant positions,
better benefits training on the job that allows people
to start immediately flexible and remote work schedules
are being used to reduce barriers into other fields.
UNT supports the recommendation of my colleagues
that we put the T-TESSs into code into tech.
And modified PPR, tank you.
Jessica: Dr. Cynthia Savage, Education Deans
of Independent Colleges and Universities,
on deck as Dr. Michael Vizinga and Dr. Lillian Harp.
-: I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Cynthia Savage, and I serve as President
of the Education Deans of Independent Colleges
and Universities of Texas.
I'm here on behalf of the voices of preparation programs
passed in Texas private universities.
I also serve as associate Dean of undergraduate studies
and the college of education at TCU,
and keeping abreast of mandates, which involve edTPA
and other states, I want to ensure that you're aware
of recent and ongoing developments in Illinois.
EdTPA was first mandated in Illinois in 2015.
And several stakeholders have been advocating to unwind
this in recent years.
Effective as of August 6th, 2021,
Illinois Governor signed an amendment into law
that prohibits the requirements of videotaping
and clinical teachers' performance
as an element of licensure.
While this doesn't remove edTPA as a requirement,
it does achieve the primary goal of protecting
the confidentiality of clinical teachers in K-12 students.
Third-party vendors are sometimes used in scoring edTPA's
video submissions, and some recordings have been leaked
online, you can easily search for these as an element
on YouTube, in a quick search of my own,
I found videos showing confidential information,
such as children's names, faces in schoolwork.
I also noticed these videos have 1000s of views.
In addition, this amended law is an important step
that highlights reasons stakeholders are advocating
for Illinois to remove edTPA requirements.
I can only share one of these today.
EdTPA has not been found to enhance student success,
particularly among underrepresented populations.
In a report published in December, 2020
by Illinois Labor and Employment Relations.
It was revealed that on average black students
had scored lower on math,
as well as reading state assessments in Illinois
since the mandate.
In addition, among eighth graders at GPA was associated
with a statistically significant decrease in reading scores.
So currently a bill is aiming to decrease testing
requirements in order to increase the number of teachers
in the states.
This bill would or more would remove teacher performance
assessment as the licensure requirements.
Thank you for your time.
Jessica: Dr. Michael Vizinga, UTSA,
on deck, Dr. Lillian Hartman and Dr. Lisa Brown.
-: I am Mike Vizinga, from UTSA.
In October, Ms. McLaughlin explained that you needed edTPA
in order to triangulate data on your new teachers.
And I'd like to take a moment to talk about celestial
navigation and I'm gonna let all of you be my stars.
If I wanted to find out where I was, I would choose a star,
say Dr. Rodriguez measure how far away I was and get a line
of position we're stretching to my left and right.
Sort of like this.
I need more information from that.
So I would choose the second star, Dr. Galvin
and get two lines like this.
There's some error in both. So I need a third star,
same Mr. Coleman, and I ended up with a picture
that looks like this.
This is the triangle that Ms. McLaughlin is talking about.
This is what we mean by triangulating data.
And that triangle is what we call a fix.
Smaller of that triangle is the more confident I can be,
that that's where I am.
If I make a mistake and choose the wrong star,
nothing personal, but if I choose Ms. Isaacs instead,
so I have two stars,
very close to each other and end up with something
that looks like this, an equals sign.
What does this have to do with that GPA?
If you experienced this with Sylvia Moreno in October,
she had her field supervisor saying she was here.
She had the edTPA evaluator saying she was here.
How do you resolve that conflict?
I'm not sure if I should answer your question,
I'll keep going, I'll keep going.
Oh, thank you, that's what that is.
You asked, how do you fix this?
I'll give you two suggestions.
The first is that the observation instruments that you use
now, that line of position is a dash line.
It has more holes than dash, and by filling those holes,
you can be more sure that your triangle is smallest.
Second, your PPR measure right now is not a single line.
It is multiple lines and it candidate with a score
between 60 and 90 on the PPR can pass, you can fix that.
Please consider, thank you.
Jessica: Dr. Lillian Hartman, urban teachers,
DFW on deck, Dr. Lisa Brown and Kelly Amadi.
-: Let's hold up one second here, Dr. Loft,
if you have a question.
Loft: No, thank you, Dr. Kelly,
I do have to leave earlier this morning,
I talked to you earlier about.
-: Yes, oh, okay, yes, sir.
Loft: So I just want to let you know, I'm sorry.
I'm gonna be off.
-: Thank you for staying with us.
Loft: We'll miss this conversation though, this is.
-: Yeah, that's excellent, okay.
-: Okay, these I'm Dr. Lillian Hartman
and I'm with the urban teachers master's program
in the Dallas Fort worth area, which we just received
or is coming around to you.
I have several teachers that would have loved
to have been here today, but they are in the classroom,
but they wanted to give testimony for their experience
with edTPA and this, so they wrote it.
Do you have access to it in front of you.
For the past two and a half years?
Our teacher prep program has been
in the edTPA pilot for Texas.
I've been involved in the process from working to set up
the rollout of, with our novice teachers
to meeting regularly throughout the year,
due to our various submission dates.
I have noticed in my teachers whom I have coached
in the assessment portfolio,
changes in their understanding and knowledge
of lesson planning, novice teachers learn about how to plan
a lesson based on a standard or teaks,
and learn how to break down that standard
into bite sized teachable objectives.
They practice that in our courses and can replicate
this process in the classroom.
Even when teachers are given lesson plans on their campuses
that aligned to their scope and sequence,
they can teach exactly what is given to them.
However, experiencing how to develop a construct
over several lessons,
through understanding and scaffolding that is necessary
for their students to access this knowledge and skill
came from the portfolio process.
Through this assessment, teachers are given an opportunity
to demonstrate their understanding of the lesson cycle
and all the critical components of preparing
and delivering a learning segment.
Teachers have gone through this process,
has all processes also been noticed,
noticed by their administrators and have been advanced
as lead teachers or teachers have PD for lesson planning
not only on their campus, but at other campuses,
working with the edTPA portfolio has also improved
my support as an instructor in courses,
professor and courses and my support is a coach
on their campuses.
This assessment gives a segway, it gives a blick.
It gives a point of to touch of students as a, excuse me,
it will help well, gives a bird's-eye view.
Let's say it that way of a teacher's potential.
It doesn't limit them, thank you.
And I apologize, thank you.
Jessica: Dr. Lisa Brown, Austin Community College,
on deck Kelly and Matti and Sheila Whitford.
-: Thank you for having me.
I've worked for the past two years as a regional coordinator
for the edTPA pilot supporting educator preparation
programs throughout Texas.
I'm a national academy member for AACT
and I provide edTPA training.
I'm also a national score for the edTPA elementary math
and literacy portfolios.
I'm also an instructor for Austin Community College.
I've made meaningful adjustments and changes
in my curriculum in relation to edTPA,
but I do not teach to the test.
I teach good classroom practice.
I've witnessed it, edTPA does work in an alternative
certification program because in completing edTPA
candidates, take a focus, look at what they do every day
in their classrooms.
PPR assess his knowledge of educational theory
and the structure of education in Texas.
The edTPA takes three to five hours of actual classroom
practice and the application of theory under a microscope,
it is challenging.
It does ask more of our candidates
and it does require more programs,
but the data that results provides evidence of teaching
practice in Texas classrooms with Texas students and a clear
picture of candidate readiness to meet the learning needs
of their students.
In my courses, I teach my candidates that assessment
is for the student, assessment is not just a way
to give a grade, it's a way to provide feedback
to the teacher and the student of their growth and mastery.
EdTPA provides a clear view of strengths
and areas for growth.
It gives candidates knowledge of their next steps
on the path to becoming effective teachers,
areas that are of concern to me.
If we have implement edTPA,
our elementary candidates are heavily tested.
I would recommend eliminating task four for elementary
candidates, provide choice for elementary candidates
between elementary literacy and elementary math portfolios
require only one portfolio of candidates
with multiple certification areas.
Cost is an issue.
My home state of Utah eliminated teacher licensing fees
through legislative changes that this could be
a way to offset costs.
If there is another choice that would better meet the needs
of Texas programs, traditional and alternative,
Texas teacher candidates and Texas students,
that choice should be explored and evaluated for viability
for all programs.
I am concerned about the implementation of T-TESS,
the T-TESS model in alternative programs,
particularly for candidates who work full time,
and have a hard time completing
all of their observation hours, thank you.
Jessica: Kelly Amadi, on deck, our Sheila Whitford
and Dr. Michael Martyr.
-: Hi, good afternoon, my name is Kelly Amadi.
Thank you SBEC for having me here today.
I am currently a Texas reading academies cohort leader
for Lockhart ISD, I've worked in public education
for 11 years, serving as a K-12 special education teacher,
a fourth grade teacher and an instructional coach,
all in title one schools.
I've been awarded teacher of the year,
served on two rounds of TES, Texas resource review,
and I'm a current Teach Plus Texas policy fellow.
Through this work, I have had the honor of serving
as a mentor to first-year teachers.
And that is why I would like to declare my support
for the edTPA.
As an instructional coach, one of my main responsibilities
at the beginning of every school year is to work
with first year teachers and support them during
these first tumultuous months.
A few years ago, I was working with a teacher,
a first-year teacher,
and a second career teacher who completed
an alternative certification program.
She had passed all her tests, aced her interview,
and yet she was drowning.
While she passed tests in theory, she failed in practice.
Students were running rampant in her classroom
and her reading and math scores were well below those
of her teammates.
Even after years of intensive support,
this teacher's contract was not renewed,
and she left the profession entirely.
Unfortunately, this is all too true for many,
with many teachers leaving the profession in the first five
years, whether university or alt cert,
on-prem teachers, often state that they felt unprepared
for such a difficult profession and that their teacher
preparation program did not adequately prepare them.
As many have said today, keeping teachers in the profession
is paramount and it starts with high expectations
at the certification level.
EdTPA would raise the bar on prospective teachers
as well as give them a better understanding
of what the job of teaching entails.
This would also hold educator preparation programs,
more accountable for the quality of future teachers,
they pass out of their programs.
In conclusion, I support the implementation of edTPA
for teacher certification in Texas.
And I hope you'll vote in favor of replacing the PPR
with the edTPA, thank you for your time.
Jessica: Last call for Sheila Whitford
and Dr. Michael Martyr.
Woman: Dr. Michael Martyr is giving
a (indistinct) right now.
Jessica: Okay, the next three names Dr. Andrea Chevalier,
on deck, Dr. Tim Miller and Teresa Hinohos.
-: Hello again, I'm Dr. Andrea Chevalier with edTPA,
and we have been listening for the past three years
in the edTPA discussions and have enjoyed engaging
in conversations with various stakeholders.
We've also had the opportunity to review research
that has related to edTPA.
And recently we have had the opportunity
to listen to candidate experiences
who've gone through the pilot.
And I think that that is something that has been a little
bit missing from all of these conversations
is that we haven't heard too much from the people
who've gone through this.
So I believe that someone who did go through the pilot,
her name is Mary L. King, she submitted written testimony.
So I hope that you take the time to read that
and her experiences.
First of all, the peer reviewed research on edTPA
suggests that it has more negative effects on candidates
than it does positive.
And so from the candidate perspective,
that includes things like the cost burden,
the cost of the test,
the time commitment that it takes to complete it
and technology and other requirements
such as gaining student media releases.
In order to submit the edTPA video submission.
And those burdens often spill over onto the district
side as well.
The research also suggests that it's an inauthentic
assessment, and so Mariel's testimony explains
how she received no points for particular part of the rubric
that dealt with special populations,
because she wasn't given those students
since she was a novice teacher.
She also had a lesson that didn't quite fit
with what the rubric needed to see.
And so she missed points on that.
And this is someone who was rated very highly
on their evaluation from their principal
on their T-TESS evaluation,
but yet failed at edTPA.
So moving forward, we do support the proposal to implement
a locally scored performance assessment
and potentially modify the PPR as well, thank you.
Jessica: Dr. Tim Miller, Raise Your Hand
Texas Foundation, on deck as Theresa Hinohos
and Carrie Grant.
-: Good afternoon y'all, Tim Miller,
Superintendent Residents at Regina and Texas.
We currently work with over two dozen university-based
preparation programs and they represent 63% of the teacher
candidates are produced by the University of Route
and the State of Texas.
We work with them on a framework that's based
on four pillars of continuous improvement partnerships
with school districts, rigorous clinical preparation,
and probably most importantly performance based progression.
So the programs that we're working with,
many of them are already using a performance-based
assessment before they're a teacher candidates
either get into clinical teaching,
or certainly before they get their standard certificate.
This morning with Commissioner Merav.
He did a fantastic job of outlining this,
the current state of where we're at in the State of Texas
in the need for a better preparation.
I think I'm gonna highlight in my written testimony,
I gave you a copy of a slide that he shared this morning.
Better preparation is very much an equity issue right now.
When you look at that slide,
almost it it's an overwhelming a number of students of color
and students who are identified as economically
disadvantaged are being taught by what is considered
as beginning teachers.
But they're actually, pre-service teachers,
people that are going through an ACP program.
So we are in favor of the recommendation to place
a performance-based assessment before a person could become
a teacher of record, so that at the very minimum,
they show those developing and mastery
of those proficiencies.
And you already have a model for this and your rules.
Two years ago, you developed an intensive pre-service model
that instead of just 30 hours, you require 150 hours,
which is much less than the 500 plus hours
that a university-based teacher gets.
But 150 hours with a performance-based assessment
is much better than what we have right now.
So thank you all very much,
and if you have any questions, contact me.
Jessica: Theresa Hinohos, ESC 19,
on deck is Carrie Griffith and Perry Crafton.
-: Hello, again, I'm representing ESC region 19s
alternative certification program.
We participated in the year two edTPA pilot,
and we were skeptical at first, but now glad that we did it,
we had nine of 11 candidates submit their portfolios
over a period of 12 months.
And it was challenging for us as well as for our candidates
in year one, as a result of our participation,
we did find deficiencies in our candidate preparation
and made adjustments to our curriculum.
This year, we've already had eight of 10 candidates
submit their portfolios over a period of four months.
Our candidates had a much better understanding
of the requirements, and we saw our candidates
be more reflective in their teaching,
even after they were done with their edTPA portfolio,
as we've been receiving scores, we've also noticed
an increase in rubrics, especially in test three,
which was our lowest, last year.
We've seen that edTPA strengthened our candidates teaching
and it improved our program with the data and feedback.
We see edTPA is a much better tool to measure candidates
readiness, to be in the classroom in comparison to PPR,
which is more memorization and they'll pass over 90%
of our candidates are Hispanic and struggle with PPR.
EdTPA involves more than just memorization.
One of the issues we foresee is cost.
It is more than double the current cost of PPR
and the majority of our candidates choose to do internships
for financial reasons.
We all know that new teachers struggle
juggling their duties.
And especially now with the learning gaps
and reading academies, they're more stressed than ever.
So completing edTPA, their first year teaching
may cause additional struggle.
We currently have one large district in our region
that is no longer hiring candidates
until they are fully certified.
EdTPA can only be completed if you're completing a clinical
or internship, unlike PPR, which can be taken at any time.
If more districts start adopting the same thinking,
then our candidates will face challenges of getting hired
and ultimately not being able to get certified,
and uncomment to some of the previous testimony.
We currently have two facilitators and this year
we have 70 candidates.
So an internally scored assessment would not be feasible
for us, thank you.
Jessica: Carrie Grifith, Texas State Teachers Association
on deck Perry Crafton and Roxanne Schroeder Arse.
-: Hello for the fourth and final time.
Thank you guys for hanging in there with us today.
My name is Carrie Griffith, Policy Specialist for the Texas
State Teachers Association.
And I'm testifying on behalf of our 65,000 members today
in opposition to adoption of the edTPA as a certification
exam, to be clear, we support the use of performance
assessments and quality quality coaching cycles
in teacher training, but we feel it's a misapplication
of the tool, if used as a certification exam.
Our fundamental opposition is twofold.
Number one, it's not a valid or reliable instrument,
the edTPA and number two, the style of assessment,
the performance assessment is not intended for use
as a high stakes classification tool.
So in terms of fifth grade skill set,
I was a fifth grade math and science teacher
and something that my students were expected to know
was the basics of sound instrument use.
So my 10 and 11 year olds were expected to understand
the principles of measurement accuracy.
This is only possible with the correctly calibrated
instrument, so if a yard stick is not exactly 36 inches,
it's not a yardstick.
And number two meaningful data can only be gathered
if the appropriate tool is used for the appropriate reason.
So we don't measure a butterfly wings with yardsticks.
So neither of these points subsumed that there's no value
in a yard stick, there's no value.
There's certainly value in performance assessment.
It's just being used in the wrong way,
according to this proposal.
So in my written testimony, I support the with citations,
the sort of the instrument being not valid or reliable.
So I'm just going to speak really quickly to the second
point that the use of a performance assessment
shouldn't be used to classify.
It's not a sorting mechanism.
It's a measure, there's great utility for teachers
to use it as a tool for growth, it's designed to have sort
of a coaching cycle feedback, so thank you.
Jessica: Final call for Perry Crafton,
Roxanne Schroeder Arse, UT Austin College of Fine Arts
on deck, Dr. Don Steinbrecher and Holly Eaton.
-: Hello, Roxanne Schroeder Arse.
I'm the Associate Dean of UT Fine Arts Education
at the University of Texas at Austin.
And I'm also a certified teacher in the state.
I taught a high school in Laredo and also in Austin
for several years.
I'm talking today about some concerns about edTPA
that are specific to Texas fine arts
education teacher candidates.
And I do encourage you to consider some of the alternatives
that were presented today that I think are much better
alternatives and I consider, I hope you'll consider
continuing to think about it.
First, edTPA is essentially an inexpensive,
video review assessment.
Of course our field supervisors are not allowed to use
videos for review because watching a video of a teacher does
not enable a reviewer to fully make an assessment
of what is happening in the room,
particularly and fine arts education
videos are an inacceptable method of evaluation in fine arts
teachers encourage interaction and engagement as outlined
in the teaks, the fine arts quote, engage and motivate
all students through active learning, critical thinking
and innovative problem solving, creativity is essential,
and the study of fine arts nurtures
and develops the whole child, unquote,
our programs prepare teachers who facilitate and encourage
collaboration among students capturing a dynamic teacher,
moving around the room,
engaging with individuals and groups of students
can not be accomplished in a single camera video.
And these candidates are distracted
by trying to make that happen.
Second, edTPA is expensive for pre-service teachers
and for educator preparation programs,
as we bring more candidates of color
who are first-generation college students sometimes also,
and also from lower, thank you.
Jessica: Dr. Don Steinbrecher, UT Fine Arts,
on deck Holly Eaton and Susan Sharp.
-: Good afternoon, I'm Don Steinbrecher,
I'm a 20 year educator, I spent 10 years in title one
schools in Texas,
and I'm currently working with 17 university students
who are eager to become teachers.
My department introduces digital portfolios,
and you're seeing some screen caps of those going around
as a way for students to demonstrate and reflect on their
understanding of teaching and learning.
For many years,
I used in test standards with these portfolios,
but two years ago,
I switched to the Texas teacher standards.
Recognizing that these standards provide a smooth transition
to the T-TESS appraisal system seemed like an obvious
pathway to go.
So you'll see some examples.
One of the things I'd hoped to do was to include the ELPs
and the SD standards,
which are part of the Texas teacher preparation standards,
but it appears that other written rationales
and competencies could become a priority
with the implementation of edTPA.
As I think about my students going into student teaching
in January of 17 student six, do not have a car.
The majority have part-time jobs.
A growing number are first gen college students
and underrepresented in the teaching field.
Recently, several opted not to complete their degree
without certification explicitly stating that they could
not afford to continue including two Spanish speakers.
So requiring edTPA as a high stakes costly
and extraneous hurdle is concerning.
I present this work as an example of an approach
and did not know about the other portfolio party
that is aligned with state standards rather than the common
core, and as a caught a bottle that is not cost prohibitive.
Furthermore, it can be a living document
rather than an obstacle.
So you'll see a certain certificate
and it can be used for interviews, will help us consider.
Jessica: Holly Eaton, Texas Classroom
Teacher's Association, on deck Susan Sharp and James Durham.
-: Mr. Chairman members, next is Classroom Teachers
Association for this opportunity to testify.
We joined a broad array of stakeholders to express our
concerns about moving forward with adopting the edTPA
as a performance assessment for teacher licensure.
In this moment, the teaching profession is at a point
we have fewer candidates pursuing the profession
while we have a demoralized and exhausted teacher corps
who were looking for a way out of the profession.
The profession has struggled for a long time to be
an attractive one.
And even before the pandemic,
fewer college students were choosing it.
It is unwise to operate in a vacuum when making
this decision without considering other constraints
on the profession, putting up an expensive barrier
to a profession that's extremely fragile at this point
in time, without meaningfully addressing ways
to make it more attractive overall could prove disastrous.
There is really no debate that the better candidate
is prepared when pursuing certification the more successful
they tend to be when they get into the profession.
But as with most complex issues,
there are more questions than answers about the specific
means of accomplishing that DCTA has consistently supported
high standards the profession,
but it's become increasingly clear that when we have a laser
focus on teacher certification,
without considering that as a state we've allowed for more
and more pathways into the profession,
including some not requiring certification
and others requiring less rigorous training,
we are sending a very mixed message.
Certainly the proposal to proceed with the edTPA
as a certification exam is viewed by some as the way
to ensure teacher candidates are better prepared
for the classroom.
However, nor mind with all the unknowns and concerns
surrounding it, the question is,
is there a verifiable urgency such that this step
must be taken now?
And do we know that the end justifies the means?
Are there other approaches that would provide a less abrupt
and costly way of better preparing teacher candidates
for success in the classroom?
These are all questions we would urge the Board to carefully
consider before moving forward with adopting edTPA
as a performance assessment for licensure.
Thank you for your time.
Jessica: Susan Sharp, Texas Association of Certification
Officers, followed by James Durham
and Professor Brenda Miller.
-: Good afternoon, thanks so much for letting me
visit with you.
I'm Susan Sharp, current President of the Texas Association
of Certification Officers, better known as TACO.
So you can remember us that way.
I'm a 35 year retired,
Texas educator and administrator,
and came back into my second life in higher ed.
I am presenting the results of the survey that we have taken
after our CSO meeting in the fall.
It consisted of four questions.
The first two questions related to our association
membership, as well as our collegian affiliations,
the responses were collected from organizations with vested
interest in educator preparation and certification.
Question number three, I recommend this pedagogy assessment
option to SBEC.
Response number one, more than one pedagogy association,
33.82%, number two, enhanced PPR with constructed response
questions, 19.81%, number three, pedagogy and professional
responsibilities, 19.32% and TPA, 15.46%,
and a T-TESS based portfolio assessment, 11.59%
for a total of 207 responses.
Question number four,
if you recommend more than one pedagogy assessment,
which ones do you recommend?
Enhanced PPR with constructed response, 31.58%,
T-TESS base portfolio assessment, 30.7%.
Pedagogian PPR 24.56%, edTPA 10.96%.
And another 2.19, thank you.
Jessica: James Durham, Texas Tech University
Teacher Education followed by Professor Brenda Miller
and Dr. Gwendolyn Poloski.
-: I brought you in at work with me and it's more than look
at it, I'll have it up here.
As an educator, I think it's important,
we've got a bunch of educators in the room.
So I'm James Durham, Texas Tech University.
Teacher Education Program.
The fall semester, I integrated edTPA planning task one
into my classroom, for a middle school
and secondary pre-service teachers.
The teacher education program at Texas Tech
is an edTPA pilot program.
The difficulties we faced with the initial implementation
of edTPA with students in my class centered mostly
around handbook vocabulary.
Please understand these are very micro level difficulties
that must be addressed in block one with students
who are initially introduced to education,
ease in the state of Texas.
Examples include the ADPA definition of the word standards.
In some cases, students believe standards meant teaks.
Other times it appeared that it was a general reporting
category, and then in another case,
we even referenced it as a lesson objective.
So interestingly, all of the students were correct
when they started thinking about this.
So we have to get an understanding of what standards
are in the edTPA.
We also ran into difficulties with the term language
function, we finally agreed to define that
as an operational verb in the teaks.
And so once we got that down,
things started to flow a little more smoothly.
On the positive side, and the reason I'm here to support
edTPA, according to my students,
during their portfolio defense finals,
and that's the portfolio they had to defend,
they felt that the, what do you need to right portion
of the edTPA handbook placed them in a situation
in which they really had to consider creative strategies
for differentiating for diverse learners.
The pre-service teachers in my class also thought the series
of questions introduced by the planning task one,
made them have to have a more specific
and more deliberate lesson planning process.
And I agree with their assessment having taught this class
for years, the addition of edTPA planning task one improved
student performance in my class,
and increase student confidence in their ability to create
lessons for diverse student populations.
For these reasons I support implementing edTPA.
Jessica: Professor Brenda Miller,
Arlington Baptist university followed
by Dr. Gwendolyn Poloski and Leslie Cooper.
-: I'm Brenda Miller, Chair of the School of Education
at Arlington Baptist University, ABU, we're piloting edTPA.
Midway through our first year of piloting, ABU views edTPA
as a partner in our endeavor to produce world changing
teachers, our program, which is already strong
is the better for having piloted edTPA.
And our teacher candidates say edTPA is worth the work.
Perhaps the most meaningful benefit for our candidates
is understanding the culture of the school,
community classes and the assets each learner
brings to the classroom requiring
differentiation and uniqueness for a defined group
of students to be embraced contemplated and specifically
planned for is perhaps the most difficult element
to replicate in any educational setting,
planning, instructing, reflecting,
and reteaching based on the decisions candidates make during
actual classroom teaching is when real life in theory
intersect, a competence is gained that even field based
experience and peer teaching cannot fully replicate.
Additionally edTPA's rubrics reposition monitoring
of learning outcomes, handing them over to candidates
themselves as they actively engage in metacognition
to internalize the proficiencies beginning teachers
should display, candidates are not only learning
scrupulous self-assessment, but they're also experiencing
what learning outcomes should look like,
how to plan effectively to achieve them and how to respond
when they fall short of accomplishing them.
Though, our EPP has had to make no curriculum changes,
embarking on this journey has challenged professors
to rethink how we engage in the same cycle of effective
teaching we present to our candidates
with a new rigor that energizes the curriculum
and models best practices,
even candidates hurdling the demands presented
from certain academic language has resulted
in their mastering terminology that was once I'm familiar
and there's a bonus benefit, candidates experienced
firsthand how important it is to plan to support learners,
especially when learners must comprehend academic language.
Thank you so much.
-: Dr. Gwendolyn Polaski, Houston ISD, Teach Plus Texas,
followed by Leslie Cooper and Dr. Carl Shapiros.
-: Hello, I know it is very late.
I'm Gwen Polaski, and I appreciate your time.
I am an English teacher at East Early College High School
in Houston ISD.
I'm in my 17th year as a classroom teacher,
I've also served as a campus-based in district level mentor
of new teachers.
I've served as an administrator responsible for appraising
and developing new teachers.
And based on my experience,
mentoring appraising and training new teachers in the field,
I encourage the Board to phase in the edTPA portfolio
assessment to replace our current PPR certification exam,
as is often true in my classroom.
I have revised and revise and revise my lesson plan.
And I'm just going to throw it out,
and start a new I've listened to all of the testimony.
I just wanted to point out that I heard that portfolio
assessment performance assessment is essential,
and we heard Commissioner Morav's analogy to the doctor.
We heard that it is essential as formative assessment,
and yet we also heard warning as a summit of assessment,
somehow it is problematic.
Let's remember that we are talking about replacing
the multiple choice tests that we take.
We all know does not reflect in any way,
the reality of the classroom.
That's what we're talking about.
It makes sense to pair formative assessment
that is performative assessment with a summit of assessment
that is also performance assessment.
So I do recommend that the phase,
a phase phasing of edTPA,
along with all these wonderful ideas for improving
our educator certification programs with formative
assessment in terms of portfolio, thank you.
-: Leslie Cooper, ESC20 EPP, followed by Dr. Carl Shapiros.
-: Good afternoon, I'm Leslie Cooper,
the Coordinator for Certification Programs at Education
Service Center region 20 specifically talking today
about our teacher alternative certification program.
As a participating year three pilot
alternative certification program,
our evidence supports the edTPA assessment
and strengthening intern, teacher instructional
and reflective practices.
Key edTPA components are explicitly found within the Texas
Teacher Standards outlined in Texas Administrative Code
and in the Texas Teacher Evaluation
and Support System or T-TESS.
The edTPA assessment is in direct alignment
with the pedagogy Texas teachers are expected to execute
as the classroom teacher of record and in direct alignment
with the high quality instruction Texas students deserve.
Engaging in the edTPA pilot has provided EPP instructors
opportunities to grow professionally as they became familiar
with the assessment framework.
As with any change initial time spent internalizing
the requirements and adjusting instructional design
and delivery to prepare for this performance-based
approach was a challenge.
Now our instructors utilize longitudinal edTPA assessment
data to drive instructional design refinement and coaching,
because this assessment is evidence-based,
teacher interns are able to take new learning,
acquired from their interactions with the edTPA rubrics,
and immediately apply it to their work.
The students they serve today,
this school year are the direct recipients
of our teacher interns continuous professional growth
through engagement in this process,
looking at the MTPA through the lens of supporting,
retaining and growing teachers.
It is clear the similarities in this performance-based
structured with written commentary of the edTPA,
the national Board certification and the Texas performance
assessment for school leaders or Passal is a strength.
I closed by acknowledging the challenges inherent
in any change that requires new learning for those charged,
with implementation and highlighting the ultimate
beneficiaries, the students we serve, thank you.
Jessica: Dr. Carl Shapiros, Texas,
A and M University, San Antonio.
-: Carl Shapiros, I'm the Dean for the College of Education
and Human Development at Texas A and M, San Antonio.
Prior to that role, I served as a President of National
Assessment Organizations, I've written assessment textbooks
that are used around the globe,
have conducted research on assessment
over the last 30 years.
And I've also developed my own assessment instruments.
I served as a CEO of a national and international
organization that provided Board certifications
through every state in the United States
and around the world.
I share that background to say that instrument construction
is a complex undertaking.
It's not something that can be done lightly.
I spent a lot of time with the international standards
organization and with the society
for standards professionals.
And as we look at the construction of alternative
approaches, I have to take a step back and wonder
what those processes were, and to look at those more
carefully, before that we would move forward
on anything that is developed at a new level.
We are in the edTPA pilot process at Texas A and M,
San Antonio, this is our second year,
and we are doing so because we want to attract quality
teachers and retain those teachers
in historically underserved areas.
Our teachers are prepared for day one from the classroom,
and we assess this through the edTPA process.
We've participated in two cycles.
We've had a great deal of success and work in this area.
We're embracing performance assessment,
regardless of what this Board Board decides.
And we'll be making,
it allows us to make direct comparisons
between those students in the pilot and outside of it.
What we've seen is that our superintendents
are highly impressed with the students who go through edTPA.
They are wanting to hire those students
who go through edTPA, we're seeing them more mature,
more prepared and ready for day one.
Every assessment comes with challenges.
There are no perfect assessment instruments
that are out there, but we ask that you approve edTPA
as the assessment standard for Texas.
-: This is a discussion item today,
we're not taking any action.
So I think how we should conclude today,
given limited times is to kind of give direction to TA
and what questions you have or what tasks you'd like
to see them perform as we get closer to decision points.
Is that fair, Emily?
Okay, all right, go ahead Jessica.
-: Dr. Kelly, I'm hearing in your voice.
I will make it as snappy as I can, if that's okay with you.
And first and foremost,
I want to thank everyone who came to present public
testimony today, the time it takes to travel to Austin,
the thought and care folks put into the materials.
I think we might've killed more than 10 trees probably
during this SBEC meeting today, got a lot of paper,
but really appreciate the passion with which folks
spoke on their perspectives.
You also received a good amount of written testimony
as well, I know one test fire remarked around candidate
perspective got a number of candidate perspectives
as well in that written testimony,
knowing that they're in their classrooms
for the most part today,
I do just want to touch on a few points addressed
throughout the public testimony,
and then have an opportunity to talk a little bit more
around the pilot, and then again,
the draft implementation plan that was included
within your item.
First, I do want to acknowledge where we are at this moment,
in our discussion of certification exams
for standard certification.
What we know right now is that as the Commissioner shared
in his remarks this morning,
we need well-prepared beginning teachers now more than ever.
And that means that we can't continue to have the status quo
in terms of our educator preparation and certification.
We know that edTPA is a valid and reliable assessment
of teacher readiness.
I know you did hear some testimony to the contrary.
That was one specific study and subsequent data proved
that study to be unfounded.
We also, in looking at our Texas specific pilot data,
it indicates strong results and no red flags.
And then ultimately we've had the opportunity throughout
the pilot process to learn and develop
a Texas specific roadmap that can be used
for effective implementation.
As we heard though,
I'm all the way back in the testimony of Dr. Ward
and Dr. Edmonson and Ellis,
they did share additional certification exam options,
greatly appreciate their willingness to share them directly
with you and the effort that they've invested
in their research to date.
As of now, though, no options that were presented
to the Board or ready for implementation.
We have though in the past,
discuss with the Board that you have at your disposal,
the opportunity to implement additional options
for certification at any time, but in doing so,
we would recommend the codification of a process,
and a set of criteria that would allow you to that
and approve additional performance certification exams
in alignment with your expectations,
similar to what Dr. Shapiro is named in his testimony.
Again, we don't want to delay moving forward
with needed changes, given the current circumstances
for our students in Texas, but do you recognize
that there would be an opportunity to keep the door open
as additional options were ready and met your expectations
to be implemented in the field.
Board, you directed TA staff to implement the ITPA pilot
back all the way in 2019 to really understand
the impact of the assessment on Texas candidates
and students in alignment with your goal of increasing
teacher quality, the Texas pilot has grown
across those three years, and we now have 40 programs.
Many of whom you heard from today who are participating
in the third of your year, the pilot,
and that represents about a third of all programs in Texas.
And those are representative of alternative and traditional
programs across the geographical landscape at the state.
What we see in to date is that the edTPA pilot data
indicates strong results and no red flags.
We saw an increase in candidate performance on MTPA
from year one to year two of the pilot,
which indicates as many programs shared that they are using
that data to improve their training
and support of candidates.
EPS are using meaningful data to improve,
which means that candidates are getting stronger support
on those foundational skills of teacher quality,
that planning instruction and assessment,
as the Commissioner shared in his address this morning
certification exams, ultimately change practice.
That's a core tenant of your strategy
to improve teacher quality.
In addition, as we look at our performance
across the demographic groups,
currently candidate performance on your current PPR
certification exam has performance gaps among demographic
groups by means score,
which translates into some pretty significant gaps
in passing percentages, across demographic groups,
a 16% gap between your African-American and white candidates
and a 10% gap between your Hispanic and white candidates
counter to that candidates performed at near parody
in their mean scores, across demographic groups
on the edTPA.
Texas specific data, therefore indicates that the edTPA
is a significantly more equitable exam pathway
than your current PPR exam.
And we had programs that name to that as well.
As you saw on the previous slide,
I did not name a passing percentage for the edTPA.
And that is because Texas does not currently have a passing
score for the edTPA.
For the purpose of the pilot, a complete edTPA portfolio
equals a passing score,
but Texas has complete control over how you establish
a passing standard for this exam and the foresight
of the Board to implement an edTPA pilot,
means that we will have 1000s upon 1000s of candidate data
points to inform the establishment of that passing standard
down the line.
We did get some really great feedback from Board members
at the October meeting, though.
That'd be helpful to look at what some of that modeled pass
rate data would look like based upon our current data.
And so I have a chart for you on the slide just
to orient you to it on the left-hand side,
that is our elementary literacy with math assessment,
and that scored out of 90 points.
And you can see along the left-hand column,
the amount of points that a candidate would need
to earn to pass,
and then the percentage of candidates that would pass
at that passing score.
So for example, if a candidate earned a 40 on the exam,
that would be a 77% passing rate.
If they are to 35, that would be a 92% passing rate.
Texas can set its own score.
The same is true in the right-hand column for all
of our other certification areas that are scored
out of a 75.
In addition, I have an additional handout in your green
folder that models the year one versus year two data.
So you can actually see that the potential pass rates
went up from year one to year two at the pilot, again,
programs learning lessons and improving practice,
and that that being demonstrated in candidate outcomes.
Ultimately Board, given this context,
we did want to take a step back and ground in your rationale
for implementing edTPA in the first place,
you have had a consistent charge from 2015 onward
to improve teacher quality due to persistent challenges
and student outcomes and teacher attrition challenges
that the Commissioner raised that are still around today,
across the past six years,
you've recognized that the current preparation
and certification practices are not producing desired
results for our Texas students,
including our current requirements to implement
the current PPR exam.
And then our current requirements that require
our preparation programs throughout the course
of their preparation to formatively evaluate
their candidates in through such as a T-TESS appraisal
or the development of a portfolio, and then recommend
a candidate for certification.
Those are already your requirements.
You require PPR, you require local performance assessment
or formal evaluations from programs.
And what you've shared is that those are not yielding
the significant change in terms of student outcomes
that we desire.
Ultimately among many of your strategies
and solutions to specifically address this problem,
you directed staff to look at alternatives to the current
PPR exam that actually asked candidates to demonstrate their
competence on a certification exam.
And therefore you also directed staff to implement the edTPA
pilot to understand the impact on Texas candidates,
given the data and given the lessons learned throughout the
edTPA pilot staff's recommendation is to replace the PPR
with the edTPA as the pedagogy exam requirement,
but also to leave that door open and codify a process
to vet and approve additional certification exam options
as they become ready in the field and demonstrate equitable
results to the edTPA.
I know that many testifiers shared this as well,
that change at scale is never easy.
The great foresight of the Board, though,
in implementing the edTPA pilot,
it afforded TA staff and truly Texas preparation programs
across the state.
The opportunity to learn some really meaningful lessons
on how to implement edTPA within the Texas context,
we now have an incredibly rich bank of trainings, resources,
and tools that are Texas specific,
and that are leveraged by Texas programs and are led
by Texas programs that support candidates programs
and their LEAS partners
to lead towards successful edTPA implementation.
And I would say we heard from folks at a hallmark
of the edTPA pilot has been the opportunity
for preparation programs to actually come together
and collaborate with one another and share resources
and best practices.
It's really brought the community together in a continuous
improvement and learning environment.
I have outlined within attachment two of the item
on pages nine through 11, a draft implementation plan
for the edTPA.
It would name that the lessons we learned throughout
the edTPA pilot have informed the development of this
implementation plan and really seek to support a strong,
but also slow and methodical transition to implementation
of the exam.
In the recommendation currently is to begin
implementation of edTPA, to replace the PPR for first time,
test takers beginning in the 22, 23 academic year.
And we would recommend for it to be implemented non
consequentially by that we mean we would carry forward
the same requirements we do during the pilot.
If you submit a complete portfolio, you pass the exam.
We would not have a cut score.
When I say first time test takers.
I say that any candidate who took the PPR
before the beginning of the academic year, but did not pass,
could continue to take the PPR throughout the first year
of this transition.
And we would use the data collected during
the 22, 23 academic year to also inform the establishment
of a set of phased in cut scores.
If we would continue non-consequential implementation
in 23, 24 require edTPA for all test takers,
seeking probationary or standard certification
and engage in the process to actually implement
those passing standards.
And to ensure that the field has ample notice
of that expectation before it becomes a requirement.
And then in 24, 25, the recommendation would be to move
towards consequential implementation,
essentially setting that score for edTPA that a candidate
would need to meet to pass.
So again, it is a slow phase in timeline
to ensure that there's that opportunity
for that continuous improvement
among Texas Preparation Programs,
and that we're intentionally setting those cut scores
to not create undue barriers, to entry into the field.
As we have shared what we know right now,
the edTPA pilot has yielded strong data
and it's ready to be implemented.
We recognize that there are other options that folks
have invested time, resources, energy, and exploring,
and we recognize, and we therefore would name that the Board
does have the opportunity.
If you choose to go down that path to also codify a process
by which to that those other options,
it's a similar process that you engaged in with the edTPA
down the line as well.
Board, I would just finally name in your statutory charge.
It reinforces that your role is to ensure that candidates
for certification have demonstrated the knowledge
and skills necessary to improve performance of our diverse
student population, and we would say based upon
the Commissioner's comments this morning,
teacher readiness to improve performance of Texas
students is more important now than ever.
And edTPA is a strategic tool as a certification exam
supports preparation programs in really developing those
beginning teachers who have demonstrated their competency
to improve Texas student outcomes.
And so with that Board would love your,
any questions or feedback that you have regarding next
steps, additional questions that I can bring back
to you with additional information around implementing edTPA
to replace the PPR, and then secondly,
a process to codify a process to vet
and approve additional performance assessments.
Kelly: Cool, all right, Ms. Streepey.
-: One question while they take PPR during
those implementation years,
or will it just be you complete your portfolio?
-: Thank you, Ms. Streepey.
It would just be that you would complete your portfolio
during that first year.
So that 22, 23 academic year staff's recommendation
would be, let's say I'm a candidate in a program right now
I've taken the PPR, I have not been able to pass.
And so I'm in that string of already engaging on the line
of PPR that I would be able to continue to take PPR
during the 22, 23 academic year.
But if I'm being prepared in 22, 23,
that I'd be required to take edTPA.
-: Okay, and one more question,
can edTPA be modified for Texas at all?
Or is it you take the whole package and that's it,
or are there some, if there were certain controversial
or particularly sticky things that we can maybe agree on,
can it be modified?
-: That's a great question, Streepey.
I would name that edTPA has been proven to be valid
and reliable because there are those set set of rubrics
that have those constructs
and that's what's being evaluated.
There are opportunities though,
I think to really think about ways that we can modify
the training that's provided to Texas programs
to ensure that we've got a really clear set of resources
and tools that are Texas specific.
And we've also had conversations with testing vendor
around the training of scores,
specifically with a lens on Texas specific context.
Kelly: Dr. Rodriguez.
-: Thank you, Dr. Kelly.
First, I want to thank Ms. McLaughlin for having brought
the data, thank you very much that that really illustrates
how our candidates have been performing based on exactly
the number of points, right.
That they are achieving during this pilot,
which is basically pass fail.
I have a series of questions, I hope you don't mind.
And I want to try to be very fast because I have to run
to the airport.
So for next time, could you please on page four of the item,
you mentioned that there are some strategies
in mind to address the challenge of cost,
and I will appreciate for next time more specifics
on what exactly does staff is proposing to address
that challenge, please.
And then on page nine and the implementation plan,
could you further define non-consequential for me
in terms of the EPP?
I am assuming that the EPP is still going to be held
accountable for the pass fail of the candidates.
Is that correct?
-: That would be our initial recommendation,
but ultimately again,
knowing that the complete portfolio equals a pass during
that period, but because we'd be out of a pilot phase
programs would be accountable for their candidates,
either passing or failing the exam,
but certainly open to feedback.
-: Okay, well, I would encourage the rest of the Board too.
You are recommending in 23, 24 that all test takers move
to edTPA, does that mean that if prior to September 1st
of 22, someone failed the PPR and hasn't yet been successful
either because they did not retest
or for whatever reason does that mean that in 23, 24,
they will have to move to edTPA?
-: Okay, after all this time,
you think I would have remembered press the button.
That's a great question. Dr. Rodriguez, ultimately,
the way that staff was envisioning the implementation
was similar to how we phase out a certification exam
when we move into a new exam.
So we ultimately said that there was a year long period by
which if I started with the PPR,
I could have additional opportunities to attempt
to pass the PPR, but then ultimately after that year long
overlap that we would end administration the PPR
and only have administration of the edTPA.
-: Okay, so a very important communication campaign
would have to take place in that regard,
in defining the faced in standards,
you are suggesting that there will be a body of individuals
and I'd like to know more of how will those individuals be
selected and who will have a voice at determining
what the face in passing standard would be.
-: Absolutely, Dr. Rodriguez.
And I can just name quickly for you that we have
a standardized process by which we recruit folks
to engage in all of our standards,
setting committees for all of your certification exams.
And so I can certainly bring some more information back
to you in February, more information back to you in February
around what that process entails.
-: If I may include a recommendation,
I think it would be extremely important to have accurate
representation of EPPs in that particular body,
as the individuals who will have to ultimately
make this happen and guide candidates through the process.
And my next question has to do with communication
to the LEAS on page 10,
you'll mention that piece as part of the communication plan.
I think that's going to be a huge component.
I think that LEAS need to recognize the lift
that this requires on their part as well.
I'm sure that the, if they're participating in the pilot,
they are very well aware, but video, particularly,
allowing candidates to video in their classrooms,
what will those processes entail?
How are we going to work together?
I think there's got to be a lot of transparency to the LEAS
to recognize the support that that will be needed.
And so I would be interested in seeing more detail
about the communication plan into the LEAS
if you would, please.
-: Absolutely, Dr. Rodriguez, if I may, I think too,
with the implementation of your proposal of your rules
around Chapter 228 earlier today,
with the virtual observation component,
I recognize that there's probably a broader communication
that needs to, we need to share with LEAS
around videotaping within our classrooms
for candidate support.
-: The communication plan includes providing updates to LEAS
and what's mentioned here are letters,
wEPPage and convenings.
So I am interested in perhaps exploring other forms
of communication, including trainings,
perhaps through the service centers,
even considering requirements asks if they will host
candidates and in their districts or schools
to have a representative attend training.
So there's full understanding
of the collaboration requirement,
I think would be beneficial in my estimation.
And I promise this is my last comment.
I think it's important to recognize on page 12,
how it is mentioned here,
that we need to look at this as an assessment
of what a beginning teacher is able to do.
I think that's very important too,
for all of us to keep in mind that
this is for a beginning teacher performance assessment.
And I appreciate, the willingness to listen to me
and I apologize that I have to excuse.
-: It's okay, we appreciate the specificity
of your questions, really appreciate it.
All right, other yes, Dr. Galvan.
-: Thank you, first of all, thank you everybody,
for whatever, from the hard work you all have put in,
in scale has put in, but also to everyone in the room,
all of us, in fact,
because ultimately the goal has been to improve education
in Texas, so our goals are the same,
it's how can we come to a consensus
of how are we gonna get there?
My question specific to you is what kind of support
can programs and candidates get from the cost scholarships
support to programs?
Because this is obviously even going to bring up the cost
for certification, STR did the same thing.
That's one and two, on page 146.
When you look at your post pilot plan,
because there's so many, if the Board were to decide yes
to whatever, in particularly to edTPA,
these deadlines are soon approaching and are these dates
set, or is it a way because there's so many programs
and students and candidates, and to move this a little bit,
are these dates set, like, for example,
it's got to be 23, 24,
because there's so many programs that have a piloted
and there's so many candidates.
Is there any way of discussing this post pilot, the dates?
-: So Dr. Galvan to address your first question related
to cost, and as Dr. Rodriguez requested too,
I'll certainly bring back the ed,
a full slate of strategies that our preparation,
our preparation groups in the pilot have leveraged
to think really strategically around cost.
We are also in conversations with our testing vendor
around opportunities for vouchers or additional resources.
So there are certainly strategies in the field,
and I'm happy to bring back sort of the full list
to you in February,
related to implementation timelines would,
from your perspective, Dr. Galvan leading a preparation
program, would you have recommendations regarding
these timelines, thinking about sort of,
I think transparently staff's been at the forefront
of our mind has really been the urgent needs
that we see across our Texas classrooms at this moment.
And then also some of the observation of programs
in the pilot who in implementation of edTPA,
that's really where they've had the opportunity to learn
lessons while it being non-consequential and really
kind of continuously improve in their practice.
But we'd love to hear if there's thoughts on us sort of,
would it be a one-year extension.
We'd love to hear a little bit more.
-: At least because from a program perspective,
we're adding the accountability of the star progress
measure, so we're dealing with that change.
Then the science of teaching, reading,
it's our candidates providing positive feedback with STR
they say I better how to teach reading,
how to help a struggling reader.
And because if that's one of our targets
to bring up our reading scores,
it seems like it can appear to be overwhelming,
to be dealing with the COVID pause and the academic,
the attrition, STR, all the new indicators coming in,
and then such a quick turnaround on 23, 24.
That would be overwhelming.
I think the intent is good.
It's I understand deadlines are important,
but whatever it is it's it seems like things
are moving a little too fast, okay.
-: Appreciate that feedback.
Patrick Avant will certainly take the considerations
they bring forward for a potential real text for you.
-: Mr. Superintendent Kim.
-: Just to make a comment and maybe a request
if this is possible, just so from a commentary perspective,
Mr. Coleman just earlier asked a question
to our guest speakers and the potent-testimony
about the first state issue.
And I think it's clear,
I'm not really sure that there's an answer to that
in the first day or the first four days
of the first five days.
There's sort of this onBoarding experience of a teacher.
It's just an initial shock is what it is
in terms of the numbers of kids you have, regardless of how,
how much preparation than you may have had.
It's just that the first day is a tough one.
I first went through an alternative certification program
for the Dallas, the school district.
It was a summer program and then boom,
in a portable classroom at a elementary school in Dallas
ISD, a fifth grade classroom,
diverse group of ESL students and go at it.
And it was actually an interesting experience.
It was a very dark room that I kind of portable room
that I went into.
And I'm not shameful to admit that.
I think I cried at the end of the day,
thinking that perhaps this was not the right thing
that I needed to do.
And lo and behold, thanks to all of that experience.
I'm sitting here today.
I don't know why, but maybe it's the punishment phase
of all of that.
I do think that when we, when I talk with superintendents
nearby our school district and others,
we've been very fortunate to see students,
teachers and teacher candidates who've gone through
this program late and by just by windfall,
our school district had to hire a couple of folks,
even though we're not in the pilot project that we've been
able to garner a good one
or two few teachers here and there.
And let me tell you the difference has been extremely great
in the fact that going back to your question, Mr. Coleman,
about this notion of their readiness
from a practitioner sense of point of view,
rather than from a sense of like a academic view
of what teaching is about.
And I think to that degree, in some sense,
the world benefit by actually looking at a copy
of the PVR tests, the multiple choice tests,
and perhaps the framework that's involved with the edTPA
as well too.
And it certainly, when the Commissioner talks
about the portfolio assessment,
it talks about all of those things.
I think that's a very important thing.
We ask our kids to perhaps produce those things
as they applied towards colleges and careers
and so forth and so on.
And I think that's an important thing to really identify.
And once again, the onBoarding of hop every school
district conduct itself to onBoard the teachers
from a cultural sense to welcome them
is a district function in my personal opinion,
in every school district has a culture of its own,
but preparation leading towards in terms of practitioner
sense of getting, understanding how it feels
to be a teacher.
But remember that from the first day,
the struggle is where is the bathroom?
Where do I go get copies?
Who do I call about a substitute and so forth and so on.
Those are all district functions that unfortunately
is not yet completely there in some sense.
So once again, though, from a teaching perspective,
that needs to be really, really be important.
And as a school district and many other school districts,
as you saw the data earlier,
we're looking at catching things up as quickly as possible.
I mean, we're talking one bad teacher,
two years of good teachers needed consecutively
in order to recover some loss with that one bad teacher.
And that's kind of, I think what the research says.
So the better prepared teachers,
certainly what we see I think with this program.
And certainly there's unforeseen,
more information we may need to look at,
but I'm certainly positive about the direction
that this is going to go.
And I hope the Board will see that as well too.
But so to that, a request that maybe a copy of the PPR,
just for me, just kind of,
I haven't taken thaT-TESS in a long time.
So I'll remember it and certainly the ATP as well, too,
if there is such thing for me to look at,
I will tell you that the OPDAS is what our evaluation
system was teachers, and we transitioned to T-TESS.
I will tell you that when majority of the evaluation
in PDAS was 92%, 91% where all teachers were proficient
and then you have schools that are struggling,
it just didn't make sense.
Or you have a group of teachers,
all of them were talking overwhelmingly at the highest
performance level, but not the kids.
I mean, at some point when you talk about the kids,
at some point here.
So I think going think about from that perspective,
I think we need to make a pivotal change
in terms of what we need to do.
And certainly I hope that this is something that the Board
will consider going forward, thank you.
-: Yes, Courtney, Ms. McDonald.
-: Well, I appreciate those comments and I think what you've
highlighted with the PDAS was one of my frustrations
that I've had the frustration with the PPR.
And so I think that's kind of what I was challenging when
looking at the data with Dr. Van (indistinct).
I still have some curiosities about that,
but I also just kind of wanted to clarify Dr. Gavin,
like to your questions,
and I'm glad you're asking those questions,
because that way you can get the information you need.
I joined the Board three years ago and this was already
in the works, and then we're talking about four more years.
So this isn't quick,
this has actually been a very long process,
and we've all come in somewhere in the middle of that
process, and so like, if you need to get like dialed,
have a conversations with staff to like catch up,
I think that would be helpful and meaningful,
but this has been a ongoing timeline that I think
because we've had so much Board transition recently,
some of that may be historical context isn't there,
but I guess I wanted to make sure that my fellow Board
members know that this has been a really thoughtful,
ongoing long process, I mean, from like eight years,
school years from 18 to 25,
so anyways, I just kind of wanted to give
a little perspective there.
-: Yes, Mr. Gore.
-: With the caveat a non-educator B,
this is my second meeting.
And so I haven't had the benefit of all of this,
but in the context of some of the information presented
here, particularly the PPR,
perhaps being it's an evaluation mechanism that doesn't
evaluate whether or not somebody has been taught
how to teach, but there's some data that suggests
it's a pretty good addition of whether somebody ultimately
can be and will be a good teacher
to that end I'm hesitant to endorse the idea
of totally phasing PPR out, because if we,
at some point decide edTPA is not the means
by which we ought to train our teachers.
I think there's some valuable legacy data
that we would have lost.
Secondly, your point in under somebody,
so is the types of pilot data okay.
No options have been presented that are ready
for implementation, Board may consider additional app
options at any time in Board, may codified in rule a process
to establish criteria.
All of which are true.
My sense is from the presentation day,
there are some efforts that are not ready perhaps,
but that a lot of progress been being made in.
And I would like to propose or consider are there EPP
programs that would pilot, continue to develop,
and further pilot something other than that edTPA
and have that be an option as well.
Kelly: Mr. Coleman, I agree with Mr. Gore.
I agree with Mr. Gore.
That's where my head is right now.
If we're serious about saying, first of all,
fantastic work on edTPA and everything we're going
and all that direction.
But I also liked the idea that, that we take seriously,
the idea that an alternative could also be developed
and that we don't necessarily have to have
all of our money in one horse.
Even though it's been awhile.
-: Dr. Kelly, if I may, I'm just to,
so that I know what to bring back for you all in terms
of rule text in February.
So to clarify, would that be staff bringing forward
along with implementation of edTPA,
a process to vet and approve additional performance
assessments, I'm curious what I may be hearing,
and I just want to make sure I'm clarifying is a process
by which you would formally pilot another option.
If it met a certain set of criteria that you would establish
similar to criteria that you all put potentially
the criteria that you already established
in the field to Ms. McDonalds point back in 2019,
when the concept of a parallel pilot was originally
proposed, there was criteria out in the field,
no programs ultimately stepped forward to run a parallel
pilot at that point.
But am I hearing potentially an opportunity to codify
some of those standards for something like a pilot
in the future?
-: Just for myself, I'd say yes,
but I would say within those things that you develop build
in flexibility, people may be looking at this differently
than, I read through the specs that we initially offered,
and those were extremely specific and detailed and long.
And there may be other ways to skin that cat that we just
allow some flexibility, like the good work
of the speakers we had today from Sam Houston State.
So just a little flexibility, but yes,
quantifying that and moving on.
That's my thoughts for what it's worth, oh, sway.
-: Yes, I was wondering because that's what I was thinking
about, also, whether it's feasible to have two parallel
programs, we already, this morning,
we mentioned that we have a rigorous process to allow,
EPP problems to certify them.
And we went through that this morning with ILT Texas.
So, and there's no consequential implementation
or to 2023, 2024 anyways.
So I was thinking whether we allow T-TESS, edTPA,
we give discretion to EPPs whether to pick one or the other
and then compare the results of those two programs.
But I don't know if it is feasible to see, okay,
these are the teachers that went through T-TESS,
teachers that went through edTPA
and then compare achievement results.
I don't know how about the visibility of that.
What I know for sure is that like Dr. Kim was saying
earlier, PPR is a test, McDonald's was saying the same thing
earlier also where most of the teachers are passing
reminds me of Alice IZ back in, before we implemented
the teacher excellence initiative,
where most of us were proficient teachers,
both schools were failing.
And without us says, this says, this is not possible.
How come you have 90, 95% of your teachers proficient,
and a bunch of schools are failing.
And we decided to go with the t-shirt excellence initiative.
So PPR looks like we have over 90% of teacher passing
successful, And then the Commissioner came here
and this morning, and he presented some information
that we're failing our students.
That, I mean, that's a fact, that's what the data says.
So while we know is that we have to change what we're doing
right now, but I don't know if it is feasible.
That's my question to wrong, two things at the same time.
-: Thank you, John.
So I do think we have a history at TEA also
of, and the legislature shared this with us
and directed us to do this as well,
which is to create local options and local pathways
and set up TEA less on the prescribing exactly what it is,
but more vetting whether or not it meets a set of criteria
or in is actually predicting what you want it to predict
and as valid and reliable as an assessment.
So we have that with our teacher incentive allotment.
We also have it with the accountability system
on allowing for local accountability systems.
So I think it's possible that we could also,
if it's the will of the Board to bring forward
some of the examples of other places
where we have set criteria and vetted local pathways
and assessments, so that we aren't just allowing
total flexibility, but we are setting criteria
and allowing less about prescribing the particular things
in the system and more the outcomes that we're trying
to get to with the assessment that we said.
-: Hold on, Dr. B. yes.
-: Just to add an opinion, everybody's.
Sometimes in education, we are criticized for getting
into what you can call analysis paralysis, right?
And we need to analyze things to death.
And, and by way of explanation, this is my third career.
So first career in the military,
which people typically associate decisiveness,
strategy, execute the strategy, go for it.
Okay, that might be more true in certain venues
in the military, especially in combat situation,
then it was business and business,
we normally entertained proposals from companies
to give us things and processes and RFPs and RFQs.
And we would go with the strongest horse
that we felt that appropriate to do so,
and here in education we've got our big boss saying,
hey, you really need to think boldly,
you gotta be aggressive and bold about this,
but I'm troubled because I sense that,
there's a good degree of possible waffling.
And I think that's, I don't know, maybe it's warranted,
maybe it isn't,
but to get to the best result and not make a mistake where,
you would have to live with that mistake for several years,
I understood that we started a three-year program here with
edTPA and the horses out of the gate and running around
this track about 90 times already.
So we're not at the beginning of this process,
we're at the end of the pilot.
And if we were to receive data that says,
here's the results of the pilot.
And I saw a little bit of that data and the presentation.
Thank you then.
And the results are significantly better than the status quo
then, should we really be quibbling about going back
and looking at T-TESS T-CAR, T whatever,
or any other solution other than the one that you charted
and that wasn't here at the time that you charted.
And now we're in the seats where we have to decide on this.
So I do not favor anything other than a bold,
aggressive approach, and I'm going through the national
Board deal right now.
I'm going through the national Board certification.
It's Stanford all the way, it's Stanford edTPA,
every step of the way.
And I like it, I think it's great.
I took the PPR, it was like falling off a log.
The PPR, if you're a good multiple choice test taker,
and you do some degree of burning the midnight oil
on them for a couple of days,
you're gonna sail through the PPR really.
It's not a good measure.
So we don't say, well, if we bump it up to 250,
boy, that's going to be great.
It's going to be a panacea and a, oh,
come constructed response.
You're going to answer a question with a nice paragraph.
I don't think that's bold enough.
I really don't, so that's my two cents.
I'm sticking with it.
-: Fair enough, but I think that the proposal
we've heard tonight is not just the PPR ,
it's using T-TESS to a significant degree
as an alternative to edTPA, yes, Commissioner.
-: Mr. Chair, just a point of process.
And perhaps, if this discussion in that,
I guess the next meeting will be in February,
and this is a prolonged discussion about potential options
that perhaps your addressing and deputy Commissioner
ulcer was mentioning as well too.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea
to have some options.
We certainly have that with TIA,
as well as some of the other things that's recently rolled
out, I do think there are some tenants though that needs
to be sort of locked in to make sure that there
is consistency though.
So for example, if a district is decided to go to different
routes, there's gotta be some type of an EPP district
partnership to make sure that that is what they're gonna do,
where else does Tacoma LIC is going to use edTPA.
So we can just have a, I dunno, can be just wilding goose,
chasing down these things and us to figure out which program
is which, and so forth and so on.
I think that might be a little bit too, too much there.
So I think in some sense,
if we're going to have that discussion,
I'm wondering what the agenda in February,
it might be better to have maybe a day before workshop
so that it's not all protract a long discussion
on that February day,
so that we're not sitting here at five O'clock
trying to mentally trying to figure this out
at some point, I don't know what's on the docket there.
So it's just my suggestion.
I don't know, I know everybody's schedule is tough,
but this is a bold action that we need to do then
certainly additional time might be needed for that one item
perhaps in that regard.
-: Well, I think Emily gonna make a comment,
so let me go there first.
-: Yes, if I can clarify what's on the table right now,
the option that was presented both at IPAC and today,
the presented alongside edTPA was the idea of using
T-TESS in combination with a portfolio,
the portfolio would be locally scored and assessed
at the EPP level.
And that package along with raising the cut score,
considering raising the cut score on PPR,
that's the alternative. That's been presented,
a couple of things to consider there.
That package is not ready to be unrolled.
That is, we don't have the reliability results.
We don't have the way it would scale or be implemented
that has not been completed.
And the modeling for what would happen with PPR.
If we raise the cut score, indicates an increase
in the performance gap between demographic groups,
not to mention the other issues with PPR
that had been raised.
So there are things that would have to be figured out
and understood and deeply explored for that option
to move forward.
What I believe Ms. McLaughlin's presented today
is that we're not intending to shut the door
on the exploration of that suite of options,
but what's before the Board now is the pilot is wrapping up
and we need to make a decision about moving forward
with edTPA is consequential implementation
and a phased in three-year approach.
These two things can happen simultaneously.
We can keep the door open,
codify a way the Board can consider the alternate option
that's been presented and others.
We can codify that and give the Board the power
and the structure with which to consider other options.
We can do that, but we also have to make a determination
about whether we are moving forward with consequential
implementation of edTPA, after the pilot,
where we are in the pilot today,
with the data that's been presented and the implementation
plan that's been drafted.
So what the plan is right now,
based on what you see on this slide is for staff to take
the recommendations that they've heard from the Board today.
And the questions that they've heard from the Board today,
come back with answers to those questions and draft rule
techs for moving forward from pilot to policy with edTPA,
number one, and to come forward with,
what would it look like to consider the option you were
presented today, what would need to be in place,
what would need to be true for you to consider
all other alternates as well?
So that just to be very clear,
that's kind of where we are in this moment.
Kelly: Jean.
-: If our job is to monitor the quality of the teachers
that come forward and our job is to make sure
they are better prepared,
that makes me concerned of moving the,
that it would be locally scored.
And so there are lots of things about those ideas
that I really liked,
but the idea that all that with the consistency
always worries me that if we have things across
the whole state and I agree that maybe they could be like,
the TIA may be, it can be a handful,
but at this point there's not,
that's not a system right this minute.
And so if our job is to make sure that we're monitoring
the quality, then giving local control to the assessment
is a concern for me and then the consistency.
And then I do like the idea of leaving the door open
for additional programs to come forth when they are ready.
-: Jean, I felt like the presentation made there essentially
conceited that they were not ready to do anything
other than, but they left that they themselves left
that door open as to whether or not that was going to have
some level of control above the EPPs.
I mean, I share what what's been expressed to you.
You don't want people who are judged by the test
to be the ones that are evaluating and so on.
So I see that point,
but I think what we're all expressing is this,
that the alternative is not well formed yet,
but I don't want to give up on it.
That's my position there.
Superintendent Kim, I agree with about once a year,
we usually have a workshop sort of maybe the day before
where we look at some issue in greater length
so that we don't have to do it at five 30 in the afternoon
on the day.
So I'll talk with with our TEA staff and see if maybe
that's a possibility for the February meeting.
I think everybody should be okay with that hopefully.
All right, well, let's wrap this up in a few minutes.
So one more go around Ms. McDonalds.
-: So I had a very similar kind of concern in question.
So just like the TEA staff.
So we've been working those Board,
it's been working for, I guess, almost 13 years
on the edprep accountability system,
and getting that student growth piece
in there is like so vital to that.
If we already have different student accountability models.
And now we're talking about having multiple teacher
certification assessment models,
how feasible I assume difficult,
would it be an could TEA do that and linking all of those
together to have a cohesive, reliable accountability measure
for at prep programs, which is something that's a huge
priority to me.
-: Okay, Dr. Gabon, yes.
-: Okay, well, hopefully this is in conclusion,
I'm speaking from the perspective of the actual
implementation, because I think you've brought up a good
point that you all, several of us are new.
You all had discussed this in the past prior to us joining.
And my reflective question to everyone is to please keep
in mind that whatever is decided if the decision-making
has been this complex,
can you imagine from a university or alternative
perspective, the challenges of the implementation,
if it has taken us this long as a state to determine
how we move forward,
that to keep in mind in the timeline that the implementation
is the actual reality that has directly impacts
the candidates and the programs,
and if it impacts the candidates,
whether it's cost or effort or time,
it's the implementation that we're going to have to really
the timeline for the implementation of whatever is decided,
because how much time we've all invested in this,
just to make the decision,
can you imagine taking something and actually having
to apply it from a program perspective,
especially in light of the fact that we've got STR
that we've got to help all these candidates get through.
So whatever the decision is,
I implore everyone to view it from the perspective
of a university or program of actual implementation.
That's why I asked about the post pilot timeline, thank you.
-: Thank you, okay, we're gonna wrap up.
I have been passed a note that I wanted to point out,
and I'm not sure if the individual is still here,
but we apparently have a member of the audience
who retired in may after 42 years as a biology teacher.
So, and his name is Coach Sharp.
Could he stand so that we can recognize him?
(audience applauds)
43, congratulations, all right, folks,
thank you for a very long day of dedication
and all these things, we'll be back in February,
and just appreciate everybody's perspective
and all the folks that came forward to speak to us today.
Thank you all very much.