WEBVTT
00:00:07.670 --> 00:00:11.910
Back in session, and we'll begin with Jessica giving us
00:00:11.910 --> 00:00:14.190
an overview, go ahead Jessica.
00:00:14.190 --> 00:00:16.410
Thank you, Dr. Kelly, I was sharing during the break,
00:00:16.410 --> 00:00:18.943
I was expecting to begin this item when the sun might've
00:00:18.943 --> 00:00:21.990
been setting, so this is incredibly exciting too,
00:00:21.990 --> 00:00:23.600
to see the sun all the way up in the sky
00:00:23.600 --> 00:00:26.490
while we're having this discussion this afternoon.
00:00:26.490 --> 00:00:30.250
Board item twenty-five is a discussion of edTPA
00:00:30.250 --> 00:00:33.260
as a certification exam for teacher certification.
00:00:33.260 --> 00:00:34.240
As you all are well aware,
00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:37.320
we provide an update on the edTPA pilot implementation
00:00:37.320 --> 00:00:39.370
at each of your SBEC meetings.
00:00:39.370 --> 00:00:41.280
And at this meeting,
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:44.920
we would love to discuss the conclusion of the edTPA pilot
00:00:44.920 --> 00:00:47.963
and discuss next steps after the edTPA pilot,
00:00:48.930 --> 00:00:52.880
I will name Board first that after our last discussion
00:00:53.896 --> 00:00:57.350
in October, where we signaled that we would be bringing
00:00:57.350 --> 00:01:01.080
forward a discussion at this meeting about next steps,
00:01:01.080 --> 00:01:03.500
at the conclusion of the edTPA pilot,
00:01:03.500 --> 00:01:05.809
staff did receive some stakeholder feedback
00:01:05.809 --> 00:01:09.280
that stakeholders were interested in discussing additional
00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:13.630
options for pedagogy exams for teacher certification.
00:01:13.630 --> 00:01:16.200
So given us, it was incredibly convenient.
00:01:16.200 --> 00:01:18.030
We had an upcoming IPAC meeting.
00:01:18.030 --> 00:01:21.100
And so the focus of that IPAC meeting was explicitly
00:01:21.100 --> 00:01:24.110
on edTPA, and at that IPAC meeting,
00:01:24.110 --> 00:01:28.980
we invited members of the IPAC to also present on additional
00:01:28.980 --> 00:01:32.170
alternative options for pedagogy assessments.
00:01:32.170 --> 00:01:35.190
We had two IPAC members present on alternative options
00:01:35.190 --> 00:01:36.680
at that time.
00:01:36.680 --> 00:01:41.680
And we've actually invited two folks to come up and share
00:01:42.280 --> 00:01:46.360
invited testimony specifically related to alternative
00:01:46.360 --> 00:01:49.040
options that they've presented either to the IPAC
00:01:49.040 --> 00:01:50.770
or more broadly to the field.
00:01:50.770 --> 00:01:53.470
So Dr. Ward from Texas Wesleyan University
00:01:53.470 --> 00:01:55.880
and doctors, Edmondson and Ellis from Sam Houston
00:01:55.880 --> 00:01:59.240
State University have been invited as invited testimony
00:01:59.240 --> 00:02:01.623
to present on alternative options.
00:02:02.813 --> 00:02:06.555
As you can also see, we still have a large number
00:02:06.555 --> 00:02:08.980
of audience members here.
00:02:08.980 --> 00:02:10.810
And that's because we've got a good number of folks
00:02:10.810 --> 00:02:13.010
registered for public testimony today
00:02:13.010 --> 00:02:17.220
to provide their perspective and insight on edTPA.
00:02:17.220 --> 00:02:20.260
And so with that, the Board often in these circumstances
00:02:20.260 --> 00:02:23.260
puts the public testimony at the start of the item
00:02:23.260 --> 00:02:25.940
to really give you an opportunity to really understand
00:02:25.940 --> 00:02:28.330
the full scope of stakeholder feedback.
00:02:28.330 --> 00:02:32.080
So after invited testimony, we'll be asking for public
00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:35.690
testimony to share, and then I will come back and share
00:02:35.690 --> 00:02:39.700
a little bit more discussion around some of the options
00:02:39.700 --> 00:02:42.500
for certain sort of certification exams,
00:02:42.500 --> 00:02:44.870
then a little reflection on the edTPA pilot,
00:02:44.870 --> 00:02:47.123
discuss some of the draft implementation plans
00:02:47.123 --> 00:02:49.060
that were included within the item
00:02:49.060 --> 00:02:50.770
and discuss some next steps.
00:02:50.770 --> 00:02:51.950
All right, thank you, Jessica.
00:02:51.950 --> 00:02:52.783
Absolutely.
00:02:52.783 --> 00:02:55.406
I mean, if you've got the order figured out.
00:02:55.406 --> 00:02:57.190
(indistinct) Today because of the number
00:02:57.190 --> 00:02:58.440
of speakers (indistinct).
00:03:01.980 --> 00:03:03.430
More ways than one.
00:03:05.210 --> 00:03:06.220
What was I saying?
00:03:06.220 --> 00:03:09.680
And do you have the number of speakers we're going to
00:03:09.680 --> 00:03:12.100
slightly compress the time from three minutes to speaker
00:03:12.100 --> 00:03:15.563
to two minutes to speaker, so Judith let's proceed.
00:03:15.563 --> 00:03:17.430
(indistinct)
00:03:17.430 --> 00:03:18.534
Yes.
00:03:18.534 --> 00:03:19.367
Actually, if I may,
00:03:19.367 --> 00:03:21.010
before Judith calls at our firsT-TESS fire,
00:03:21.010 --> 00:03:24.230
'cause I know we do have one person registered
00:03:24.230 --> 00:03:27.620
for public testimony before invited testimony as well.
00:03:27.620 --> 00:03:30.840
I did just want to name, I recognize there's a lot of paper
00:03:30.840 --> 00:03:32.790
on Board member desks at this point.
00:03:32.790 --> 00:03:36.627
And so I do have in the rainbow colored folders,
00:03:36.627 --> 00:03:40.750
there is a green folder that's specifically documents
00:03:40.750 --> 00:03:44.300
related to edTPA, so if you want to, you can come
00:03:44.300 --> 00:03:45.840
sort of shuffle your papers to the side.
00:03:45.840 --> 00:03:48.497
And this is one we'll be referencing for the remainder
00:03:48.497 --> 00:03:51.130
of the day today and did just want to orient before we call
00:03:51.130 --> 00:03:55.450
up that public testimony and invited testimony that included
00:03:55.450 --> 00:03:59.002
within the folder, there is a synthesis of the written
00:03:59.002 --> 00:04:02.360
testimony, we had a pretty large number of folks submit
00:04:02.360 --> 00:04:03.810
written testimony as well.
00:04:03.810 --> 00:04:06.560
So I thought that might be helpful to orient you to,
00:04:06.560 --> 00:04:10.170
as you're also listening to public testimony.
00:04:10.170 --> 00:04:12.270
And then another document that I think it's helpful
00:04:12.270 --> 00:04:14.544
to also keep handing it at this time.
00:04:14.544 --> 00:04:17.520
We've also included in the folder,
00:04:17.520 --> 00:04:20.060
a frequently asked questions or responses document.
00:04:20.060 --> 00:04:22.834
This may be a helpful document just to have with you
00:04:22.834 --> 00:04:25.820
throughout the public testimony as well.
00:04:25.820 --> 00:04:27.730
So just wanted to orient you towards some of the documents
00:04:27.730 --> 00:04:28.910
in that folder.
00:04:28.910 --> 00:04:31.593
Now I will be quiet and let the stakeholders share.
00:04:34.787 --> 00:04:38.983
Sheena Salsido, Teach Plus Texus.
00:04:51.490 --> 00:04:54.683
Hello, good afternoon.
00:04:55.570 --> 00:04:58.940
Before I begin, I would like to disrespectfully ask
00:04:58.940 --> 00:05:01.820
to receive all three of the minutes
00:05:01.820 --> 00:05:03.750
that were on the SBEC website.
00:05:03.750 --> 00:05:05.240
I'm from Odessa, Texas,
00:05:05.240 --> 00:05:08.650
and I traveled a long way and lift a large group of eighth
00:05:08.650 --> 00:05:11.490
graders, I'm not learning US history today.
00:05:11.490 --> 00:05:14.760
And I would just really be honored to take all three minutes
00:05:14.760 --> 00:05:16.983
if you would, humbly obliged me.
00:05:23.020 --> 00:05:25.323
Sorry, okay, oh yes, okay.
00:05:30.560 --> 00:05:33.213
Awesome, thank you, thank you very much.
00:05:34.070 --> 00:05:35.950
Good afternoon distinguished members of SBEC.
00:05:35.950 --> 00:05:38.510
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
00:05:38.510 --> 00:05:41.110
My name is Sheena Salsito and I'm an eighth grade US history
00:05:41.110 --> 00:05:44.140
teacher in Ector County ISD in Odessa, Texas.
00:05:44.140 --> 00:05:44.973
I currently serve
00:05:44.973 --> 00:05:47.440
as a Teach Plus Texas senior policy fellow.
00:05:47.440 --> 00:05:50.110
I'm an alternatively certified teacher who despite easily
00:05:50.110 --> 00:05:52.997
passing the PPR was grossly unprepared for the realities of
00:05:52.997 --> 00:05:56.970
the classroom, I'm here today in complete support of edTPA.
00:05:56.970 --> 00:05:59.730
Ector County ISD sits in the heart of the West Texas oil
00:05:59.730 --> 00:06:02.320
patch and is one of the most significant contributors to oil
00:06:02.320 --> 00:06:04.690
and gas production in the United States.
00:06:04.690 --> 00:06:06.920
Our district has the additional challenges of a mobile
00:06:06.920 --> 00:06:10.010
population of immigrant students, transplant students,
00:06:10.010 --> 00:06:14.470
significant teacher vacancies and many title one campuses.
00:06:14.470 --> 00:06:17.130
The rise and inevitable fall of the oil and gas industry
00:06:17.130 --> 00:06:20.390
also creates a unique opportunity for second career teachers
00:06:20.390 --> 00:06:23.160
like myself to join the profession,
00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:25.030
but with a lack of adequate training,
00:06:25.030 --> 00:06:28.230
lack of coaching and a certification exam of the PPR
00:06:28.230 --> 00:06:30.290
that doesn't actually measure readiness,
00:06:30.290 --> 00:06:33.230
teachers are put into classrooms wholly unprepared,
00:06:33.230 --> 00:06:34.850
as an alternatively certified teacher,
00:06:34.850 --> 00:06:37.160
I understood what was required of me during my clinical
00:06:37.160 --> 00:06:39.880
teaching year, I passed the content exam with ease,
00:06:39.880 --> 00:06:42.430
completed a year's worth of modules and trainings.
00:06:42.430 --> 00:06:43.410
I received however,
00:06:43.410 --> 00:06:46.010
minimal feedback from my program mentor about my lesson
00:06:46.010 --> 00:06:48.300
plans and my actual classroom teaching.
00:06:48.300 --> 00:06:50.890
I had no idea how to effectively manage a classroom,
00:06:50.890 --> 00:06:52.700
how to properly differentiate lessons
00:06:52.700 --> 00:06:54.458
or how to engage my students.
00:06:54.458 --> 00:06:58.750
Despite my desire to be a great teacher, I wanted to quit.
00:06:58.750 --> 00:07:00.410
I understood how to do it,
00:07:00.410 --> 00:07:02.980
but the theory was simply not enough to be successful
00:07:02.980 --> 00:07:04.720
in teaching my students.
00:07:04.720 --> 00:07:06.780
When I asked how to best prepare for the PPR.
00:07:06.780 --> 00:07:09.370
I was advised by colleagues to pretend that I had never been
00:07:09.370 --> 00:07:10.660
in a real classroom.
00:07:10.660 --> 00:07:12.920
The PPR is you see is assessed as if the students
00:07:12.920 --> 00:07:15.140
have a perfectly equitable learning environment,
00:07:15.140 --> 00:07:17.390
fully supportive families, helpful administrators,
00:07:17.390 --> 00:07:19.080
and a school culture that students
00:07:19.080 --> 00:07:21.030
noT-TESS scores come first.
00:07:21.030 --> 00:07:23.190
So while this does not accurately reflect the realities
00:07:23.190 --> 00:07:26.370
of the classrooms and my district in order to pass the PPR,
00:07:26.370 --> 00:07:28.380
I needed to pretend that the year of experience I had
00:07:28.380 --> 00:07:31.332
was irrelevant, I passed the PPR on the first try,
00:07:31.332 --> 00:07:33.940
but as educators, we know that student does not master
00:07:33.940 --> 00:07:35.550
a skill because they got the correct answer
00:07:35.550 --> 00:07:36.883
on a multiple choice exam.
00:07:37.930 --> 00:07:39.831
This is why we continue to spiral in standards.
00:07:39.831 --> 00:07:42.420
We encourage collaboration and we give them many
00:07:42.420 --> 00:07:44.940
opportunities to demonstrate mastery.
00:07:44.940 --> 00:07:47.570
My support for FCPA comes directly from my experience
00:07:47.570 --> 00:07:50.300
as an alternatively certified teacher and more rigorous
00:07:50.300 --> 00:07:52.180
performance assessment process will hold teacher
00:07:52.180 --> 00:07:54.870
preparations programs accountable for better preparing
00:07:54.870 --> 00:07:56.170
our teacher candidates.
00:07:56.170 --> 00:07:58.300
It will allow us to coach up our teacher candidates
00:07:58.300 --> 00:08:01.059
to prevent the demoralization of being overwhelmed
00:08:01.059 --> 00:08:03.220
and leaving a passion driven career,
00:08:03.220 --> 00:08:05.080
which ultimately costs our students
00:08:05.080 --> 00:08:06.550
as they deal with the revolving door
00:08:06.550 --> 00:08:08.600
of inexperienced teachers.
00:08:08.600 --> 00:08:12.010
Adopting edTPA will increase quality by ensuring prospective
00:08:12.010 --> 00:08:14.670
teachers put the theory into actual practice
00:08:14.670 --> 00:08:16.430
by performing the duties of a teacher
00:08:16.430 --> 00:08:18.320
in a real Texas classroom.
00:08:18.320 --> 00:08:21.794
I urge you to adopt edTPA and consider the 32,000 students
00:08:21.794 --> 00:08:25.270
at Ector County ISD who deserved the highest quality
00:08:25.270 --> 00:08:27.490
of teacher, thank you again for your time.
00:08:27.490 --> 00:08:30.143
And I'm happy now to answer any questions you might have.
00:08:33.130 --> 00:08:34.213
Thank you very much.
00:08:34.213 --> 00:08:35.213
Thank you.
00:08:39.230 --> 00:08:40.400
Thank you Dr. Kelly,
00:08:40.400 --> 00:08:42.025
Dr. Kelly, with our invited testimony,
00:08:42.025 --> 00:08:45.000
we have given the provision that they have seven minutes
00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:47.180
to share their invited testimony.
00:08:47.180 --> 00:08:50.550
And each one of our presenter groups has included there.
00:08:50.550 --> 00:08:52.800
They have sides as well that are included for you within
00:08:52.800 --> 00:08:55.430
this PowerPoint, so you can see their visuals too.
00:08:55.430 --> 00:08:58.620
So I'll turn it over to Judith to call upon (indistinct).
00:08:58.620 --> 00:09:02.210
By way of clarification Board over the last couple
00:09:02.210 --> 00:09:06.140
of years, we've also had interest expressed
00:09:06.140 --> 00:09:09.010
by Sam Houston State, but in this particular case,
00:09:09.010 --> 00:09:11.690
the input wasn't received until after the deadline.
00:09:11.690 --> 00:09:13.710
So we kind of compromised and said,
00:09:13.710 --> 00:09:17.730
we'll give you some time to present an update.
00:09:17.730 --> 00:09:20.450
So that's what we're looking at.
00:09:20.450 --> 00:09:23.490
So Jessica or our first speaker.
00:09:23.490 --> 00:09:24.640
Thank you, Dr. Kelly,
00:09:24.640 --> 00:09:26.453
Dr. Ward is our first speaker.
00:09:42.410 --> 00:09:45.220
Good afternoon, Dr. Kelly and SBEC members,
00:09:45.220 --> 00:09:47.860
as Jessica mentioned, my name is Dr. Elizabeth Ward,
00:09:47.860 --> 00:09:49.870
and I'm an Associate Professor of Education
00:09:49.870 --> 00:09:51.330
and Director of Field Experiences
00:09:51.330 --> 00:09:53.140
at Texas Wesleyan University.
00:09:53.140 --> 00:09:56.440
And I also serve on the IPAC Board.
00:09:56.440 --> 00:09:59.780
I want to express thanks to Dr. Kelly and the TEA staff
00:09:59.780 --> 00:10:02.510
for this opportunity to present some options related
00:10:02.510 --> 00:10:04.083
to the PPR exam.
00:10:05.770 --> 00:10:08.000
Since we have a number of new SBEC members,
00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:11.680
I thought it might be informative to look back at the 2017
00:10:11.680 --> 00:10:15.640
request for proposal when TEA began exploring a replacement
00:10:15.640 --> 00:10:17.130
for the PPR,
00:10:17.130 --> 00:10:20.330
I would like to highlight a few items from this slide.
00:10:20.330 --> 00:10:22.380
First, the RFP provided vendors,
00:10:22.380 --> 00:10:26.100
the opportunity to propose a constructed response PPR
00:10:26.100 --> 00:10:28.970
and or a performance assessment.
00:10:28.970 --> 00:10:33.070
Second, the RFP stated that the new exam should reflect
00:10:33.070 --> 00:10:35.250
the Educator Code of Ethics.
00:10:35.250 --> 00:10:38.540
Finally, the new exam should improve the ability to identify
00:10:38.540 --> 00:10:42.090
and select candidates with the requisite knowledge, skills,
00:10:42.090 --> 00:10:45.900
and abilities for successful classroom practice.
00:10:45.900 --> 00:10:49.050
This final statement implies that the current PPR does not
00:10:49.050 --> 00:10:52.660
do a very good job at identifying candidates with the skills
00:10:52.660 --> 00:10:54.533
to be successful in the classroom.
00:10:56.740 --> 00:10:59.390
However, a team of researchers from the research
00:10:59.390 --> 00:11:02.240
for educator equity and excellence center
00:11:02.240 --> 00:11:05.560
at Texas State University has been researching the PPR
00:11:05.560 --> 00:11:08.750
and its ability to predict educational outcomes.
00:11:08.750 --> 00:11:11.980
They're finding show that the PPR positively predicts
00:11:11.980 --> 00:11:14.700
the principal evaluation of first-year teachers
00:11:14.700 --> 00:11:17.233
and the academic growth of students.
00:11:20.470 --> 00:11:22.800
When we look at the Reedy findings and you actually
00:11:22.800 --> 00:11:26.980
have a what's on this slide, in addition to a policy brief,
00:11:26.980 --> 00:11:29.750
we see that for principal evaluation,
00:11:29.750 --> 00:11:33.240
the current PPR positively predicts principal evaluations
00:11:33.240 --> 00:11:36.020
of new teacher quality and effectiveness.
00:11:36.020 --> 00:11:39.521
Principals evaluate new teachers who have higher PPR scores
00:11:39.521 --> 00:11:42.660
as being of higher quality and more effective
00:11:42.660 --> 00:11:45.040
than teachers with lower PPR scores.
00:11:45.040 --> 00:11:47.320
And these results are based on approximately
00:11:47.320 --> 00:11:50.770
70,000 principal evaluations.
00:11:50.770 --> 00:11:53.830
And it is the second strongest predictor
00:11:53.830 --> 00:11:55.533
of the principal evaluation.
00:11:56.700 --> 00:11:59.910
When we look at student academic achievement and growth,
00:11:59.910 --> 00:12:02.920
the current PPR positively predict student academic
00:12:02.920 --> 00:12:06.690
achievement and growth in math and English in those grades
00:12:06.690 --> 00:12:09.490
that have been evaluated so far,
00:12:09.490 --> 00:12:12.300
students taught by teachers with higher PPR scores
00:12:12.300 --> 00:12:14.920
learned significantly more than students taught
00:12:14.920 --> 00:12:17.990
by the teachers with lower PPR scores.
00:12:17.990 --> 00:12:20.780
And as I mentioned, I have the policy draft statement.
00:12:20.780 --> 00:12:24.327
So I know there's a lot of information on this slide.
00:12:24.327 --> 00:12:26.650
And so I'd like to pause here for just a moment
00:12:26.650 --> 00:12:29.160
to see if you have any questions about the data
00:12:29.160 --> 00:12:30.543
from this study.
00:12:39.860 --> 00:12:41.713
Yes, Commissioner Oser.
00:12:44.890 --> 00:12:49.290
There we go, yes, thank you for sharing this Dr. Ward,
00:12:49.290 --> 00:12:52.670
but for this policy brief, can you share a little bit more
00:12:52.670 --> 00:12:55.610
about where this has been published or reviewed
00:12:55.610 --> 00:12:56.443
for the study.
00:12:57.848 --> 00:13:02.848
(indistinct) Now, as to particular specifics
00:13:03.430 --> 00:13:05.590
about the study since I did not personally conduct
00:13:05.590 --> 00:13:10.562
the research of Dr. Van (indistinct) is here in the room.
00:13:10.562 --> 00:13:13.890
If you have specific questions about the study, I would,
00:13:13.890 --> 00:13:15.780
if you would allow me to invite him up,
00:13:15.780 --> 00:13:18.120
I'd be happy to have him come up and answer specific
00:13:18.120 --> 00:13:19.533
questions about the study.
00:13:20.400 --> 00:13:21.560
We might let you continue,
00:13:21.560 --> 00:13:24.083
and then we can come up with additional questions.
00:13:26.160 --> 00:13:30.680
So if we were to look at implementation options related
00:13:30.680 --> 00:13:34.930
to the PPR, we could keep the current option one
00:13:34.930 --> 00:13:38.610
would be to keep the current PPR cut score at 240.
00:13:38.610 --> 00:13:41.330
It's important to note that this study shows that teachers
00:13:41.330 --> 00:13:45.144
with a score of two 40 still show academic growth,
00:13:45.144 --> 00:13:48.300
and there would be no increased cost to candidates
00:13:48.300 --> 00:13:50.683
and no impact on the teacher pipeline.
00:13:51.560 --> 00:13:54.650
Option two would be for TEA to model the impact
00:13:54.650 --> 00:13:58.090
of rating PPR cut scores on teacher production,
00:13:58.090 --> 00:14:00.530
and make a recommendation to the Commissioner
00:14:00.530 --> 00:14:03.320
about possibly raising that score.
00:14:03.320 --> 00:14:05.540
It's important to note that while this would have no
00:14:05.540 --> 00:14:07.350
increased cost of candidates,
00:14:07.350 --> 00:14:12.260
it would have some negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
00:14:12.260 --> 00:14:15.290
And then finally, option three would be to negotiate
00:14:15.290 --> 00:14:18.140
and begin development of constructed response items
00:14:18.140 --> 00:14:20.860
for the PPR with the test vendor,
00:14:20.860 --> 00:14:23.660
develop a timeline for phasing in the constructed response
00:14:23.660 --> 00:14:26.210
PPR, similar to what we did for the science
00:14:26.210 --> 00:14:28.370
of teaching reading exam.
00:14:28.370 --> 00:14:31.860
This would result in a slight increased cost for candidates
00:14:31.860 --> 00:14:34.893
and luckily some negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
00:14:36.700 --> 00:14:40.419
If we want to just consider what this exam might look like,
00:14:40.419 --> 00:14:43.430
here's what the development process could be.
00:14:43.430 --> 00:14:45.670
I think it's important to note that we would not have
00:14:45.670 --> 00:14:48.750
to start building this test from scratch.
00:14:48.750 --> 00:14:53.210
We could continue to use the existing PPR item test bank
00:14:53.210 --> 00:14:56.360
and not new item development process that already exists
00:14:56.360 --> 00:14:58.600
for selected response items.
00:14:58.600 --> 00:15:00.240
We would need to determine the structure
00:15:00.240 --> 00:15:02.720
of the new constructed response exam.
00:15:02.720 --> 00:15:05.290
How many selected response items would it have
00:15:05.290 --> 00:15:08.430
and how many constructed response items would it have?
00:15:08.430 --> 00:15:10.440
It's important to note that Pearson currently,
00:15:10.440 --> 00:15:14.400
already has constructed response pedagogy exams in use.
00:15:14.400 --> 00:15:16.907
So they already have these types of questions
00:15:16.907 --> 00:15:19.050
and scoring rubrics in place,
00:15:19.050 --> 00:15:24.050
specifically the NES has two constructed response items,
00:15:24.450 --> 00:15:26.777
a case study related to assessment instruction
00:15:26.777 --> 00:15:30.090
and the learning environment and a work product related
00:15:30.090 --> 00:15:31.890
to the professional environment.
00:15:31.890 --> 00:15:34.510
And then finally, we would need to determine the timeline
00:15:34.510 --> 00:15:37.433
for implementation in standard setting.
00:15:39.120 --> 00:15:42.240
If we compare the edTPA and the PPR,
00:15:42.240 --> 00:15:44.960
we find that independent research shows that the PPR
00:15:44.960 --> 00:15:47.900
positively predicts principal evaluations of teachers
00:15:47.900 --> 00:15:50.540
and student academic growth.
00:15:50.540 --> 00:15:53.470
Whereas independent research on edTPA shows a negative
00:15:53.470 --> 00:15:57.290
impact of student achievement and teacher production.
00:15:57.290 --> 00:16:00.580
The REDEE research indicates that EPP focus on effective
00:16:00.580 --> 00:16:03.670
candidate preparation and the knowledge and skills measured
00:16:03.670 --> 00:16:06.910
on the PPR has a positive impact on the candidates
00:16:06.910 --> 00:16:09.930
effectiveness in the classroom and their students' academic
00:16:09.930 --> 00:16:12.960
achievement, the PPR is fully aligned
00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:15.765
with this SBEC standards, including the code of ethics.
00:16:15.765 --> 00:16:20.570
Whereas the edTPA does not assess the code of ethics,
00:16:20.570 --> 00:16:22.760
continuing the use of the PPR,
00:16:22.760 --> 00:16:25.700
even if modified to a constructed response exam,
00:16:25.700 --> 00:16:28.470
is much less costly for candidates
00:16:28.470 --> 00:16:30.223
than implementing the edTPA.
00:16:31.080 --> 00:16:33.920
And so I would invite any questions that you have
00:16:33.920 --> 00:16:36.223
regarding this presentation.
00:16:41.230 --> 00:16:42.580
Yes, Mr. Coleman.
00:16:45.370 --> 00:16:46.960
So Dr. Ward, just so I'm clear,
00:16:46.960 --> 00:16:50.150
is it your suggestion or your recommendation that there's be
00:16:50.150 --> 00:16:53.090
some combination going forward as an alternative,
00:16:53.090 --> 00:16:58.090
a combination, including possibly raising the cut score,
00:16:58.160 --> 00:17:01.113
incorporating a constructed response component.
00:17:02.410 --> 00:17:05.140
Was there anything else other than those two?
00:17:05.140 --> 00:17:07.050
Well, if we go back to the December,
00:17:07.050 --> 00:17:10.613
2018 meeting with edTPA was first discussed at SBEC
00:17:10.613 --> 00:17:13.480
on the solution or a possible solution at that time
00:17:13.480 --> 00:17:17.630
was a constructive response PPR coupled with some type
00:17:17.630 --> 00:17:20.138
of portfolio that was tied to the T-TESSs,
00:17:20.138 --> 00:17:23.560
evaluation instruments that's currently in use.
00:17:23.560 --> 00:17:25.870
And that's actually where my colleagues from Sam Houston
00:17:25.870 --> 00:17:29.300
are gonna present what a curricular based performance
00:17:29.300 --> 00:17:30.673
assessment could look like.
00:17:31.594 --> 00:17:33.183
[Coleman Okay, all right, okay, thanks.
00:17:40.120 --> 00:17:42.140
Well, just work my way through it
00:17:42.140 --> 00:17:43.690
is a lot of deep thought there.
00:17:46.210 --> 00:17:51.190
One thing that edTPA touts is that the PPR is a sort
00:17:51.190 --> 00:17:56.190
of a one for all, all grade levels, all subjects, et cetera.
00:17:57.430 --> 00:18:00.720
The PPR is, whereas at TPA is more specific to grade level
00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:03.190
and subjects, how would would you answer that.
00:18:03.190 --> 00:18:06.590
Well, my colleagues from Sam Houston, really,
00:18:06.590 --> 00:18:09.193
this is meant to be a joint proposal that we would do
00:18:09.193 --> 00:18:12.880
something with the PPR and then embed in two to eight,
00:18:12.880 --> 00:18:15.700
a curricular requirement for a performance assessment prior
00:18:15.700 --> 00:18:18.040
to the issuance of licenses.
00:18:18.040 --> 00:18:20.590
That's a polite way of saying, wait we'll answer.
00:18:21.630 --> 00:18:22.950
I don't want to steal their thunder.
00:18:22.950 --> 00:18:25.660
They've worked really hard on their presentation.
00:18:25.660 --> 00:18:26.783
Thank you, ma'am.
00:18:28.840 --> 00:18:32.390
Doctor, do you have data on all the grade levels,
00:18:32.390 --> 00:18:35.920
so they're like grade seven, grade eight and algebra one
00:18:35.920 --> 00:18:37.047
in regards to PBR?
00:18:38.369 --> 00:18:39.955
So is this the only grade levels
00:18:39.955 --> 00:18:42.340
or do you have data in all the grade levels?
00:18:42.340 --> 00:18:46.130
Imagine I'm looking at one point cleaning the data set
00:18:46.130 --> 00:18:49.930
for 1.4 to 1.8 million students and running this would be
00:18:49.930 --> 00:18:52.260
a very extensive process.
00:18:52.260 --> 00:18:56.870
So these are the score, I'm sorry, the exams,
00:18:56.870 --> 00:18:59.550
the end of course exams or the stories that have been
00:18:59.550 --> 00:19:01.330
assessed so far.
00:19:01.330 --> 00:19:04.190
I do know that Dr. Van (indistinct) does plan to look
00:19:04.190 --> 00:19:05.990
at other certification areas,
00:19:05.990 --> 00:19:08.081
but this is where they started.
00:19:08.081 --> 00:19:09.741
And what kind of teachers,
00:19:09.741 --> 00:19:12.981
these are veteran teachers teaching this students?
00:19:12.981 --> 00:19:16.400
These are teachers that are currently in classrooms
00:19:16.400 --> 00:19:19.740
that are giving the star and in the course exchange.
00:19:19.740 --> 00:19:24.160
So they are teachers in Texas public schools that have a PPR
00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:27.550
score that they can use to identify them.
00:19:27.550 --> 00:19:31.774
And the students that were on that they taught
00:19:31.774 --> 00:19:34.300
and then administered the exams to.
00:19:34.300 --> 00:19:38.217
Okay, because I guess my concern is how do we know that,
00:19:39.930 --> 00:19:43.790
how do we establish code session when we could be,
00:19:43.790 --> 00:19:46.460
maybe they have a great teacher in sixth grade or fifth
00:19:46.460 --> 00:19:49.360
grade, how do we know that that was the impact
00:19:52.120 --> 00:19:55.170
versus having great teachers previous to getting
00:19:55.170 --> 00:19:56.100
to these grade levels?
00:19:56.100 --> 00:19:58.550
I think you're asking questions that since I did not
00:19:58.550 --> 00:20:00.010
actually conduct the study,
00:20:00.010 --> 00:20:02.340
I do think it would be appropriate because I think
00:20:02.340 --> 00:20:05.323
this is a very important issue that we need to discuss.
00:20:05.323 --> 00:20:07.380
We have not fully looked at the PPR.
00:20:07.380 --> 00:20:10.108
So I'd like to invite Dr. Van (indistinct) to ask these
00:20:10.108 --> 00:20:13.479
very specific answer, these very specific questions,
00:20:13.479 --> 00:20:14.900
if you're okay with that.
00:20:14.900 --> 00:20:16.420
Okay.
00:20:16.420 --> 00:20:18.770
Per (indistinct) request, yes please.
00:20:20.091 --> 00:20:22.940
It keeps going off, okay, thank you.
00:20:22.940 --> 00:20:25.487
Hello, thank you, my name is Jim Van (indistinct)
00:20:25.487 --> 00:20:28.780
I'm an Associate Professor of Secondary Education
00:20:28.780 --> 00:20:32.495
and a researcher in the REDEE Center at Texas State
00:20:32.495 --> 00:20:35.490
that is working on this policy brief that you have
00:20:35.490 --> 00:20:36.323
in front of you.
00:20:37.560 --> 00:20:40.740
The way in which the specific analysis that is looking
00:20:40.740 --> 00:20:44.210
at student academic growth was done is we accounted
00:20:44.210 --> 00:20:47.959
for how the student had performed in the prior year
00:20:47.959 --> 00:20:52.300
and looked at how well they did in the current year.
00:20:52.300 --> 00:20:57.300
And when they were taught by teachers who had higher PPR
00:20:57.500 --> 00:20:59.310
scores, the students did better.
00:20:59.310 --> 00:21:01.350
So if you think about students,
00:21:01.350 --> 00:21:03.950
we're acquainting students based on their prior performance.
00:21:03.950 --> 00:21:06.680
And if this group of students had a teacher
00:21:06.680 --> 00:21:08.320
with a higher PPR score,
00:21:08.320 --> 00:21:10.240
they would have scored better than the current year
00:21:10.240 --> 00:21:12.510
than the students, so the growth they experience
00:21:12.510 --> 00:21:15.660
was greater the higher the PPR score was.
00:21:15.660 --> 00:21:17.210
Does that answer your question?
00:21:18.310 --> 00:21:19.550
Okay, thank you.
00:21:22.750 --> 00:21:25.380
Yes, Dr. Kelney Oeser.
00:21:25.380 --> 00:21:27.230
I haven't yet received my PhD.
00:21:27.230 --> 00:21:30.103
So I'll just take deputy Commissioner.
00:21:31.590 --> 00:21:34.992
Thank you, Dr. Van (indistinct) and it's good to see you
00:21:34.992 --> 00:21:39.992
again, one of the recommendations does say that there's some
00:21:40.470 --> 00:21:42.990
negative impact on the teacher pipeline.
00:21:42.990 --> 00:21:44.650
And then when I look at the brief,
00:21:44.650 --> 00:21:49.290
it says it's about 1500 to 2000 candidates per year
00:21:49.290 --> 00:21:53.679
by raising the cut score at the suggested level,
00:21:53.679 --> 00:21:56.600
which seems like a pretty significant impact
00:21:56.600 --> 00:21:59.364
on the teacher pipeline, but what I don't see
00:21:59.364 --> 00:22:04.364
is did you see a differential impact based on demographics
00:22:05.500 --> 00:22:07.750
of teachers when you modeled this as well?
00:22:07.750 --> 00:22:09.320
And I think it's important to be clear,
00:22:09.320 --> 00:22:11.790
the recommendation is not to go to 250.
00:22:11.790 --> 00:22:14.843
That was just one of the things that we looked at
00:22:14.843 --> 00:22:19.060
was considering what would happen if we went to 250
00:22:19.060 --> 00:22:22.900
as a hypothetical, the suggestion being put forward
00:22:22.900 --> 00:22:26.500
is that the agency model changes in the cut score,
00:22:26.500 --> 00:22:29.670
if that would be the direction the Board would like to go
00:22:29.670 --> 00:22:31.670
and then figure out what the impacts are.
00:22:31.670 --> 00:22:35.445
When I looked at the change from 240 to 250 as a cut score,
00:22:35.445 --> 00:22:40.445
there was a decrease of about 9.5% of the number of teachers
00:22:40.830 --> 00:22:43.020
that passed on the first attempt,
00:22:43.020 --> 00:22:45.173
which was less than the 14% for edTPA,
00:22:47.416 --> 00:22:49.670
negative impact on the pipeline.
00:22:49.670 --> 00:22:53.310
But there was also a decrease in the teachers of color
00:22:53.310 --> 00:22:57.080
passing that there was a greater impact on teachers of color
00:22:57.080 --> 00:23:00.590
than there were on white teachers by changing
00:23:00.590 --> 00:23:02.550
the cut score from 240 to 250.
00:23:02.550 --> 00:23:04.760
So that's why the recommendation was for the agency
00:23:04.760 --> 00:23:07.750
to model where is the appropriate cut score
00:23:07.750 --> 00:23:09.700
if that's the decision the Board makes.
00:23:10.850 --> 00:23:12.810
Thank you.
00:23:12.810 --> 00:23:13.960
Ms. McDonald.
00:23:15.710 --> 00:23:18.060
Hi, Jim, also, I don't have my doctorate,
00:23:18.060 --> 00:23:21.080
but you and I have had over a decade of experience
00:23:21.080 --> 00:23:22.750
talking about data and research.
00:23:22.750 --> 00:23:25.490
And so I just have one kind of question that I'm sure
00:23:25.490 --> 00:23:26.363
you can answer.
00:23:28.230 --> 00:23:31.080
So one of my frustrations with the PPR is that the scores
00:23:31.080 --> 00:23:32.827
are, the passing rates are so high,
00:23:32.827 --> 00:23:34.130
so many teachers do well.
00:23:34.130 --> 00:23:35.790
And you, and I kind of talked about this earlier.
00:23:35.790 --> 00:23:39.110
So you gave me a little bit of a heads up on to get this
00:23:39.110 --> 00:23:44.110
question ready, but wouldn't the scores be so high
00:23:44.350 --> 00:23:47.310
that they would be closely correlated to positive outcomes
00:23:47.310 --> 00:23:49.890
to show anything but a positive outcome.
00:23:49.890 --> 00:23:53.757
Like if the score is so high internet differentiation
00:23:53.757 --> 00:23:58.230
there to assign anything but positive outcomes.
00:23:58.230 --> 00:24:03.230
Great question, and if we were to eliminate all of the non
00:24:04.962 --> 00:24:08.560
passing scores from the analysis, oh, thank you.
00:24:08.560 --> 00:24:11.460
If we were to eliminate all of the non passing scores
00:24:11.460 --> 00:24:14.540
from the analysis, then we would run into that situation.
00:24:14.540 --> 00:24:15.570
But that's not what we did.
00:24:15.570 --> 00:24:18.560
What we did is we took everyone who took the test
00:24:18.560 --> 00:24:21.410
and looked at their first attempt because they're allowed
00:24:21.410 --> 00:24:23.880
to have multiple attempts, we took their first attempt,
00:24:23.880 --> 00:24:26.800
so we could compare apples to apples to see what their
00:24:26.800 --> 00:24:30.420
preparation was for taking it the first time.
00:24:30.420 --> 00:24:35.420
And so we're not restricting the range to only those
00:24:35.830 --> 00:24:37.920
who passed, we're looking at the entire range
00:24:37.920 --> 00:24:39.910
of the first attempt for those.
00:24:39.910 --> 00:24:43.520
Sure, but when isn't the passing rate still
00:24:43.520 --> 00:24:44.503
in the 90s?
00:24:45.555 --> 00:24:47.870
Yeah, it was about, I think it was about 92%
00:24:47.870 --> 00:24:50.233
of last time average across the last 10 years.
00:24:50.233 --> 00:24:51.513
I mean, that's.
00:24:51.513 --> 00:24:53.340
Oh, sorry, it keeps going off.
00:24:53.340 --> 00:24:56.233
It was about 92% average over the last two years.
00:24:57.128 --> 00:25:00.163
So 92 is pretty close to a 100.
00:25:01.226 --> 00:25:06.226
Yeah, but within that range of 240 to 300,
00:25:06.420 --> 00:25:09.500
there's still a lot of variability in scores.
00:25:09.500 --> 00:25:12.530
So there was the 8% who fail,
00:25:12.530 --> 00:25:15.920
but then there's the 60 point difference from passing
00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:18.640
to a perfect score that is taken into consideration
00:25:18.640 --> 00:25:19.940
in the model.
00:25:19.940 --> 00:25:23.573
So it's a robust finding and applying the principle
00:25:23.573 --> 00:25:27.077
finding with the principal evaluation scores,
00:25:32.135 --> 00:25:34.760
the type of edprep program that they went to
00:25:34.760 --> 00:25:37.930
was the strongest predictor of how the principals evaluated
00:25:37.930 --> 00:25:41.100
the teachers, teachers from traditional programs
00:25:41.100 --> 00:25:45.790
have the highest overall ratings from the principals.
00:25:45.790 --> 00:25:48.250
Second strongest predictor was the score that they got
00:25:48.250 --> 00:25:50.970
on the PPR, so somebody who just barely passed
00:25:50.970 --> 00:25:53.850
with a 240, got a lower rating on average
00:25:53.850 --> 00:25:56.440
from their principals for quality and effectiveness
00:25:56.440 --> 00:25:59.373
than somebody who scored a 260.
00:25:59.373 --> 00:26:01.722
And they had a lower rating than somebody who scored
00:26:01.722 --> 00:26:02.963
at the 275 or 280 range.
00:26:05.590 --> 00:26:06.950
Yeah, you're welcome.
00:26:06.950 --> 00:26:10.607
Very good, all right, any other questions
00:26:10.607 --> 00:26:11.440
for the doc?
00:26:12.660 --> 00:26:15.290
All right, let's move on to our next step.
00:26:15.290 --> 00:26:17.570
May I finish one final statement.
00:26:17.570 --> 00:26:21.697
So as I turned my presentation over or the podium over
00:26:21.697 --> 00:26:24.730
to my colleagues from Sam Houston,
00:26:24.730 --> 00:26:27.940
I really just want to point out that neither the PPR
00:26:27.940 --> 00:26:32.470
or the edTPA addresses the day one readiness issues
00:26:32.470 --> 00:26:35.770
for the 60% of candidates who are first-year teachers
00:26:35.770 --> 00:26:38.740
in the classroom on probationary or intern certificate.
00:26:38.740 --> 00:26:41.580
So I want you to keep that piece in mind as you listen
00:26:41.580 --> 00:26:43.990
to the presentation from Sam Houston.
00:26:43.990 --> 00:26:45.590
Thank you so much for your time.
00:26:49.220 --> 00:26:51.563
Stacy Edmondson and Christina Ellis.
00:27:12.594 --> 00:27:14.500
All right, good afternoon.
00:27:14.500 --> 00:27:17.840
So yes, thank you very much for allowing us
00:27:17.840 --> 00:27:19.400
to be back here with you today.
00:27:19.400 --> 00:27:21.420
We were with you this time last year,
00:27:21.420 --> 00:27:23.802
although we were all talking heads
00:27:23.802 --> 00:27:26.970
in the Hollywood squares version,
00:27:26.970 --> 00:27:29.580
we're very excited to be here today, I'm Stacy Edmondson,
00:27:29.580 --> 00:27:32.740
and this is my colleague Dr. Christina Ellis.
00:27:32.740 --> 00:27:35.030
So for the last three years, we've been leading,
00:27:35.030 --> 00:27:38.063
what's been commonly referred to as the T-TESS pilot.
00:27:38.920 --> 00:27:41.340
So today we want to describe a little bit about the work
00:27:41.340 --> 00:27:44.505
that we've done over the last year in particular,
00:27:44.505 --> 00:27:46.320
talk about our findings,
00:27:46.320 --> 00:27:49.330
and then really describe how we think the performance
00:27:49.330 --> 00:27:52.160
assessment in this capacity as an important part
00:27:52.160 --> 00:27:53.610
of teacher preparation curriculum.
00:27:53.610 --> 00:27:56.600
And I really want to start first by saying how much
00:27:56.600 --> 00:28:00.560
we a 100% completely agree with Commissioner Morav's
00:28:00.560 --> 00:28:03.190
comments this morning regarding the importance
00:28:03.190 --> 00:28:06.410
of high quality teacher preparation and the impact
00:28:06.410 --> 00:28:08.360
that has not just on our teachers,
00:28:08.360 --> 00:28:10.703
but on our students in K-12 settings.
00:28:13.122 --> 00:28:14.160
Excellent.
00:28:14.160 --> 00:28:16.170
Oh, yep, sorry.
00:28:16.170 --> 00:28:17.800
So I'd like to start with providing
00:28:17.800 --> 00:28:21.050
an overview of where we've been for the last three years.
00:28:21.050 --> 00:28:22.000
It's hard to believe it,
00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:24.620
but three years ago was the first time that Stacy and I
00:28:24.620 --> 00:28:27.020
got to come and talk with you about the way performance
00:28:27.020 --> 00:28:29.993
assessment can be used to improve teacher preparation.
00:28:30.830 --> 00:28:34.175
Shortly thereafter, we began piloting T-TESS with our 14
00:28:34.175 --> 00:28:37.150
edprep partners until our work was interrupted
00:28:37.150 --> 00:28:39.390
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
00:28:39.390 --> 00:28:42.060
However, we were resilient and we picked up right where
00:28:42.060 --> 00:28:45.570
we left off when schools reopened in fall of 2020,
00:28:45.570 --> 00:28:48.100
that December, we were honored to spend an hour and a half
00:28:48.100 --> 00:28:50.640
with you discussing our work and your recommendations
00:28:50.640 --> 00:28:53.110
for improving on what we had already done.
00:28:53.110 --> 00:28:55.350
We took your recommendations and spent the first part
00:28:55.350 --> 00:28:58.130
of 2021 creating a portfolio assessment
00:28:58.130 --> 00:29:01.260
that we now call the T-TESS Teacher Candidate Assessment
00:29:01.260 --> 00:29:04.093
of Readiness, which we launched in August.
00:29:07.890 --> 00:29:09.470
Before moving on to our findings,
00:29:09.470 --> 00:29:11.300
I would be remiss if I didn't thank each of our
00:29:11.300 --> 00:29:13.973
participating EPPs for generously giving their time,
00:29:13.973 --> 00:29:17.033
energy and ideas to make this pilot possible.
00:29:18.740 --> 00:29:21.700
So an important component of our study
00:29:21.700 --> 00:29:25.010
was to ensure that the participants we had engaged with
00:29:25.010 --> 00:29:28.878
reflected the diversity and breadth of Texas CPPs.
00:29:28.878 --> 00:29:30.190
So to that end,
00:29:30.190 --> 00:29:33.810
we have participants from large public universities,
00:29:33.810 --> 00:29:37.660
small private universities, HBCUs, rural,
00:29:37.660 --> 00:29:41.772
urban, suburban EPPs, for profit non-profit alternative
00:29:41.772 --> 00:29:45.296
certification providers and everything from very large
00:29:45.296 --> 00:29:48.160
to very small programs.
00:29:48.160 --> 00:29:51.210
Our participants also represent almost every university
00:29:51.210 --> 00:29:53.840
system in Texas.
00:29:53.840 --> 00:29:56.610
In spring 2021, 253 candidate videos
00:29:56.610 --> 00:30:01.560
were externally reviewed by or externally reviewed
00:30:01.560 --> 00:30:04.410
to determine inter-rater reliability of assigned field
00:30:04.410 --> 00:30:09.090
supervisor T-TESS observations, 21 external evaluators,
00:30:09.090 --> 00:30:12.320
all T-TESS trained appraisers were paid a stipend
00:30:12.320 --> 00:30:15.660
to review each candidates video and independently score
00:30:15.660 --> 00:30:18.730
the candidates teaching using the T-TESS rubric.
00:30:18.730 --> 00:30:21.700
These scores were then compared to this corresponding
00:30:21.700 --> 00:30:24.420
evaluations provided by the candidates respective field
00:30:24.420 --> 00:30:27.510
supervisor, and the results indicated that not only
00:30:27.510 --> 00:30:30.770
is T-TESS a valid measure of teacher candidate performance,
00:30:30.770 --> 00:30:33.088
but statistically field supervisor scores
00:30:33.088 --> 00:30:37.430
are indeed a reliable measure of candidate performance,
00:30:37.430 --> 00:30:39.883
when compared with external evaluators.
00:30:41.010 --> 00:30:43.770
To that end, I would like to invite Susan Skidmore,
00:30:43.770 --> 00:30:46.870
who ran the independence statistical analyses
00:30:46.870 --> 00:30:49.390
to talk a little bit about what those numbers mean.
00:30:49.390 --> 00:30:51.080
Thank You, Stacy.
00:30:51.080 --> 00:30:54.520
Two indices here provide insight into the reliability
00:30:54.520 --> 00:30:57.150
of the scores to understand the extent to which
00:30:57.150 --> 00:31:02.150
the evaluators were able to consistently rate the candidates
00:31:03.440 --> 00:31:08.070
and index of their inter-rater reliability was used, ICC.
00:31:08.070 --> 00:31:12.810
And you can see on the table on the right that the ICC
00:31:12.810 --> 00:31:14.810
values are provided by item.
00:31:14.810 --> 00:31:17.550
And the corresponding interpretation is provided there
00:31:19.143 --> 00:31:20.640
as well, on the table on your left,
00:31:20.640 --> 00:31:22.510
you see the Chromebox alpha,
00:31:22.510 --> 00:31:25.810
and that is a measure of internal consistency,
00:31:25.810 --> 00:31:29.300
which was used to provide the average degree of association
00:31:29.300 --> 00:31:32.240
between all possible pairs.
00:31:32.240 --> 00:31:35.300
So that whole totality of these results indicate
00:31:35.300 --> 00:31:38.840
that supervisors were able to reliably assess
00:31:38.840 --> 00:31:41.740
teacher-candidate performance at the item level
00:31:41.740 --> 00:31:43.383
and by dimension.
00:31:49.030 --> 00:31:52.430
After reviewing our findings from 2020, 2021,
00:31:52.430 --> 00:31:55.960
and your recommendations we created and launched the T-TESS
00:31:55.960 --> 00:31:59.028
teacher candidate assessment of readiness,
00:31:59.028 --> 00:32:01.454
which was based on an existing portfolio assessment.
00:32:01.454 --> 00:32:03.450
We had used at Sam Houston for five years.
00:32:03.450 --> 00:32:06.260
We expanded that portfolio to include expectations
00:32:06.260 --> 00:32:08.864
that by you all and TEA staff, and also aligned it
00:32:08.864 --> 00:32:12.380
to the TEA room, I mean the T-TESS rubric.
00:32:12.380 --> 00:32:14.520
Teacher-candidates who complete this assessment
00:32:14.520 --> 00:32:17.610
submit a portfolio of authentic artifacts that demonstrate
00:32:17.610 --> 00:32:19.880
their competence, including lesson plans,
00:32:19.880 --> 00:32:23.030
videos of themselves, teaching student work samples,
00:32:23.030 --> 00:32:26.120
feedback given to students, analysis of student learning,
00:32:26.120 --> 00:32:28.370
and self-reflection of their practice.
00:32:28.370 --> 00:32:30.930
These portfolios are then scored by both the candidates,
00:32:30.930 --> 00:32:34.030
field supervisor, and we will also have an external
00:32:34.030 --> 00:32:35.140
evaluator rate them.
00:32:35.140 --> 00:32:38.650
So the inter-rater reliability can be analyzed yet again,
00:32:38.650 --> 00:32:41.324
this, we will collect approximately 200 portfolios
00:32:41.324 --> 00:32:45.010
and expect to collect another 250 in the spring.
00:32:45.010 --> 00:32:47.610
We also added three EPS to our pilot,
00:32:47.610 --> 00:32:50.913
findings from this work will be available in summer 2022,
00:32:53.285 --> 00:32:55.890
based on our pilots findings, thus far,
00:32:55.890 --> 00:32:58.240
the thorough literature review we've conducted
00:32:58.240 --> 00:33:00.280
and our professional experiences,
00:33:00.280 --> 00:33:02.910
we recommend that the Board adopt performance assessment
00:33:02.910 --> 00:33:05.950
as a mandatory component of teacher preparation curriculum
00:33:05.950 --> 00:33:09.020
and consider revising the PPR in light of the testimony
00:33:09.020 --> 00:33:10.670
you've heard today.
00:33:10.670 --> 00:33:13.700
Creating this recommendation has been no easy feat,
00:33:13.700 --> 00:33:15.560
throughout its creation, we have sought input
00:33:15.560 --> 00:33:17.690
from stakeholders from all backgrounds
00:33:17.690 --> 00:33:20.820
to ensure that what we propose to you is feasible for EPPs
00:33:20.820 --> 00:33:22.800
of all sizes and configurations,
00:33:22.800 --> 00:33:25.190
and that it will improve the day one readiness
00:33:25.190 --> 00:33:26.930
of all teacher candidates.
00:33:26.930 --> 00:33:29.360
To that end, we developed a succinct letter included
00:33:29.360 --> 00:33:31.070
in your packet that outlines our concerns
00:33:31.070 --> 00:33:32.650
and proposed solutions.
00:33:32.650 --> 00:33:35.220
To date, we have received nearly 250 signatures
00:33:35.220 --> 00:33:37.030
on this letter, including the Association
00:33:37.030 --> 00:33:39.030
of Texas Professional Educators,
00:33:39.030 --> 00:33:41.630
the Texas Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers
00:33:41.630 --> 00:33:43.790
and the list goes on and I'll let you read them
00:33:43.790 --> 00:33:46.120
because I see the one minute signal.
00:33:46.120 --> 00:33:48.540
Most importantly, we receive signatures from educators
00:33:48.540 --> 00:33:50.600
working in over a 100 school districts
00:33:50.600 --> 00:33:52.580
in teacher preparation programs.
00:33:52.580 --> 00:33:55.440
As this letter demonstrates our proposal is widely supported
00:33:55.440 --> 00:33:57.180
by the people who have the greatest interest
00:33:57.180 --> 00:33:59.590
in a well-prepared teacher workforce.
00:33:59.590 --> 00:34:02.420
I do want to point out that as a curricular requirement,
00:34:02.420 --> 00:34:05.180
the performance assessment must be successfully completed
00:34:05.180 --> 00:34:08.070
prior to issuing a standard intern or probationary
00:34:08.070 --> 00:34:10.970
certificate, they're requiring performance assessment.
00:34:10.970 --> 00:34:13.710
Prior to any certification we can improve the day one
00:34:13.710 --> 00:34:15.630
readiness of all novice teachers,
00:34:15.630 --> 00:34:18.610
including the 60% of teachers who teach Texas students
00:34:18.610 --> 00:34:20.790
before they complete their pedagogy exams.
00:34:20.790 --> 00:34:23.180
Dr. Kelly, will you allow us to finish our presentation?
00:34:23.180 --> 00:34:25.783
We have one more slide, thank you.
00:34:26.996 --> 00:34:29.780
For these teachers, changing the certification exam
00:34:29.780 --> 00:34:32.380
will do nothing to improve their ability to instruct
00:34:32.380 --> 00:34:33.990
students on day one.
00:34:33.990 --> 00:34:35.930
However, implementing performance assessment
00:34:35.930 --> 00:34:38.560
prior to entering the classroom will necessitate expanding
00:34:38.560 --> 00:34:40.440
the number of field experience hours,
00:34:40.440 --> 00:34:42.780
their candidates complete before becoming teachers
00:34:42.780 --> 00:34:45.340
of record, which can be shown to improve teachers
00:34:45.340 --> 00:34:48.230
self-efficacy retention and pedagogical skill.
00:34:48.230 --> 00:34:50.520
This morning, Commissioner Morav drew a parallel
00:34:50.520 --> 00:34:53.220
to how we prepare doctors and rightfully so.
00:34:53.220 --> 00:34:55.980
Teaching is a noble profession that should be regarded
00:34:55.980 --> 00:34:58.040
as highly as medicine or law.
00:34:58.040 --> 00:35:01.240
However, unlike medicine or law, Texas currently allows
00:35:01.240 --> 00:35:03.140
teachers to formally enter the profession
00:35:03.140 --> 00:35:04.890
with very little practice.
00:35:04.890 --> 00:35:07.440
In Texas, the majority of teachers enter classrooms
00:35:07.440 --> 00:35:10.525
with only 30 hours of experience working in schools.
00:35:10.525 --> 00:35:13.500
That's less than one full workweek,
00:35:13.500 --> 00:35:16.180
by requiring this type of structured performance assessment
00:35:16.180 --> 00:35:18.460
as a curricular component for preparation,
00:35:18.460 --> 00:35:21.060
you ensure him an important first step in improving
00:35:21.060 --> 00:35:24.560
the outcomes for all novice teachers and their students.
00:35:24.560 --> 00:35:26.420
And the last slide, so I'll be quick,
00:35:26.420 --> 00:35:30.560
but in order for T-TESS to be used consistently across EPPs
00:35:30.560 --> 00:35:31.950
and across teacher-candidates,
00:35:31.950 --> 00:35:34.850
as a meaningful performance assessment of candidate
00:35:34.850 --> 00:35:37.940
readiness and portfolio authentic teaching is needed
00:35:37.940 --> 00:35:40.244
inclusive of video recorded lessons in real time,
00:35:40.244 --> 00:35:43.730
content and grade band specific to the candidates
00:35:43.730 --> 00:35:45.520
area of certification.
00:35:45.520 --> 00:35:48.140
The portfolio in corresponding artifacts must include
00:35:48.140 --> 00:35:51.170
evidence of planning instruction, the learning environment,
00:35:51.170 --> 00:35:53.620
professional pedagogical responsibilities,
00:35:53.620 --> 00:35:56.805
assessment and ethics of the EPP.
00:35:56.805 --> 00:36:01.390
The preparation programs should be formally accountable
00:36:01.390 --> 00:36:04.690
for a statistically appropriate number of external reviews
00:36:04.690 --> 00:36:08.350
to ensure continued reliability of the performance.
00:36:08.350 --> 00:36:10.720
Each EPP should set an approved passing standard
00:36:10.720 --> 00:36:13.270
in conjunction with their advisory Board subject to agency
00:36:13.270 --> 00:36:16.970
approval, and candidates must be provided specific targeted
00:36:16.970 --> 00:36:19.670
feedback that is appropriate for proving their teacher
00:36:20.745 --> 00:36:23.010
performance, because this assessment is internally evaluated
00:36:23.010 --> 00:36:25.620
the corresponding feedback cabins in a timely,
00:36:25.620 --> 00:36:27.320
more immediate fashion.
00:36:27.320 --> 00:36:29.860
Candidates who do not meet the passing standard
00:36:29.860 --> 00:36:31.930
will not be allowed to move forward in the certification
00:36:31.930 --> 00:36:34.950
process, though, they will have the opportunity to resubmit
00:36:34.950 --> 00:36:37.020
additional attempts to pass.
00:36:37.020 --> 00:36:39.830
Preparation programs will be accountable for their scores,
00:36:39.830 --> 00:36:43.890
the process, and the provision of the reliability data
00:36:43.890 --> 00:36:46.760
via external review as part of their five-year formal review
00:36:46.760 --> 00:36:49.876
with TEA, this accountability is consequential
00:36:49.876 --> 00:36:52.960
for EPPs to remain in good standing.
00:36:52.960 --> 00:36:55.720
Through this process, candidate candidates are accountable
00:36:55.720 --> 00:36:59.080
and supported through authentic, reliable, valid,
00:36:59.080 --> 00:37:02.110
and meaningful evaluation and EPPs
00:37:02.110 --> 00:37:04.890
are likewise accountable for their candidates progress,
00:37:04.890 --> 00:37:06.860
readiness, and performance.
00:37:06.860 --> 00:37:10.090
So we are glad to answer questions and we look forward
00:37:10.090 --> 00:37:11.808
to sharing the fall and spring data
00:37:11.808 --> 00:37:12.980
from this report as well.
00:37:12.980 --> 00:37:15.030
Alright, Mr. Coleman, yes, sir.
00:37:16.826 --> 00:37:18.910
Dr. Ellis, good afternoon.
00:37:18.910 --> 00:37:20.430
I'm sensing a theme here,
00:37:20.430 --> 00:37:23.510
but at least three times during your presentation,
00:37:23.510 --> 00:37:27.220
you mentioned day one readiness and also Dr. Ward
00:37:27.220 --> 00:37:29.550
mentioned day one readiness, really briefly,
00:37:29.550 --> 00:37:34.550
if you could distinguish or differ between how this model,
00:37:36.270 --> 00:37:40.463
this T-TESS model, the modified PPR,
00:37:42.440 --> 00:37:46.870
how does it make an educator ready on day one
00:37:46.870 --> 00:37:48.813
as compared to edTPA?
00:37:50.330 --> 00:37:51.753
Okay, thank you for asking that.
00:37:51.753 --> 00:37:54.740
I think that's a really important distinction.
00:37:54.740 --> 00:37:57.180
So the way that ed GPA has been proposed to you
00:37:57.180 --> 00:37:59.520
is that it would be a requirement before a standard
00:37:59.520 --> 00:38:01.490
or probationary certificate.
00:38:01.490 --> 00:38:03.730
That means teachers are allowed to enter the classroom
00:38:03.730 --> 00:38:07.750
for an entire year before completing their edTPA portfolio.
00:38:07.750 --> 00:38:10.410
For the majority of teachers who choose that route
00:38:10.410 --> 00:38:12.730
into the classroom, that means they would start doing it
00:38:12.730 --> 00:38:14.060
probably in the spring.
00:38:14.060 --> 00:38:15.940
If I'm an alternatively prepared teacher,
00:38:15.940 --> 00:38:18.420
I likely need some practice before I'm ready to put
00:38:18.420 --> 00:38:20.037
my edTPA portfolio together.
00:38:20.037 --> 00:38:23.130
And so I'm not doing it until around spring break.
00:38:23.130 --> 00:38:24.930
Therefore I was a high school teacher,
00:38:24.930 --> 00:38:27.906
I regularly instructed 190 students a year.
00:38:27.906 --> 00:38:32.090
So I've touched 190 students before I'd even take made
00:38:32.090 --> 00:38:33.961
my first attempt on edTPA.
00:38:33.961 --> 00:38:36.970
What we proposed to you today is that they have to show
00:38:36.970 --> 00:38:38.530
their readiness before they're allowed
00:38:38.530 --> 00:38:40.610
in front of any children.
00:38:40.610 --> 00:38:43.470
Just one other follow-up question, if I may, Dr. Kelly,
00:38:43.470 --> 00:38:45.482
this we'll do the art to the scoring.
00:38:45.482 --> 00:38:50.460
I mean, we've mentioned a portfolio component
00:38:50.460 --> 00:38:54.775
with your model, your suggestion here edTPA is understanding
00:38:54.775 --> 00:38:57.080
portfolio component as well,
00:38:57.080 --> 00:39:01.837
whose scores the portfolio we'll do are going to take your,
00:39:03.753 --> 00:39:07.760
or a model or your pilot versus who scores edTPA?
00:39:07.760 --> 00:39:11.780
Sure, with edTPA, those are all external scores,
00:39:11.780 --> 00:39:14.900
because they are it's part of the certification license exam
00:39:14.900 --> 00:39:17.690
with these, they are scored internally by their supervisor
00:39:17.690 --> 00:39:21.480
by their program and then a sample of that is also
00:39:21.480 --> 00:39:24.840
sent to external evaluators who are T-TESS appraisers
00:39:24.840 --> 00:39:26.900
certified in Texas.
00:39:26.900 --> 00:39:30.280
And that is to, again, ensure that that reliability
00:39:30.280 --> 00:39:31.500
is consistent over time.
00:39:31.500 --> 00:39:33.950
So the T-TESS scores are certified in Texas.
00:39:33.950 --> 00:39:38.290
What about the external scores with regard to edTPA?
00:39:38.290 --> 00:39:40.258
Are they outside of Texas?
00:39:40.258 --> 00:39:41.890
Are they certified?
00:39:41.890 --> 00:39:43.620
They're hired by Pearson.
00:39:43.620 --> 00:39:46.240
So I really can't speak to that, but they,
00:39:46.240 --> 00:39:49.690
there is no requirement for them to be Texas certified
00:39:49.690 --> 00:39:51.833
or T-TESS informed.
00:39:52.861 --> 00:39:55.111
Okay thank you.
00:39:57.050 --> 00:39:58.533
Yes, Ms. Streepey.
00:40:00.410 --> 00:40:01.710
Thank you for your help.
00:40:02.630 --> 00:40:05.370
I was wondering on this teacher candidate assessment
00:40:05.370 --> 00:40:09.360
of readiness, you said it's content and grade band specific.
00:40:09.360 --> 00:40:12.510
Do you already have those outlined and are you already
00:40:12.510 --> 00:40:16.723
grading those per those or is that something that's coming?
00:40:17.600 --> 00:40:21.330
Sure, it's content and grade pants specific
00:40:21.330 --> 00:40:23.680
because it takes place while they're in their field
00:40:23.680 --> 00:40:26.420
components of their preparation program,
00:40:26.420 --> 00:40:30.140
which are also great band and content specific.
00:40:30.140 --> 00:40:33.170
And so there's not a separate T-TESS rubric
00:40:33.170 --> 00:40:35.330
depending on what grade level you're in,
00:40:35.330 --> 00:40:37.390
but your placement is specific to that.
00:40:37.390 --> 00:40:39.790
And therefore your evaluation is likewise specific.
00:40:39.790 --> 00:40:43.140
And the feedback you receive is specific to that content
00:40:43.140 --> 00:40:45.690
in grade band area.
00:40:45.690 --> 00:40:47.993
Okay, and may I follow up?
00:40:48.980 --> 00:40:53.980
So, why don't we right at this moment?
00:40:55.454 --> 00:40:57.170
Is this the first?
00:40:57.170 --> 00:41:01.830
Sure we did it in the spring, but we had not,
00:41:01.830 --> 00:41:04.320
we had just received the feedback from this meeting last
00:41:04.320 --> 00:41:08.170
year about adding the portfolio components.
00:41:08.170 --> 00:41:11.240
And so we developed those components last spring.
00:41:11.240 --> 00:41:13.180
So last spring with the external evaluation,
00:41:13.180 --> 00:41:15.160
it was just the video of their teaching,
00:41:15.160 --> 00:41:18.180
but not the full portfolio of artifacts.
00:41:18.180 --> 00:41:20.240
And so this fall, we have both,
00:41:20.240 --> 00:41:21.900
we'll have the videos of their teaching
00:41:21.900 --> 00:41:24.936
and the corresponding portfolio and artifacts
00:41:24.936 --> 00:41:26.543
that go with that.
00:41:27.758 --> 00:41:30.175
(indistinct)
00:41:35.850 --> 00:41:38.830
Yes, no, that did happen based on the videos from spring.
00:41:38.830 --> 00:41:41.940
And so the reliability data that were presented earlier
00:41:41.940 --> 00:41:45.000
are from those 253 videos.
00:41:45.000 --> 00:41:47.710
And we did have all of those externally evaluated
00:41:47.710 --> 00:41:49.060
the videos from the spring.
00:41:52.610 --> 00:41:54.160
Yes, Dr. Rodriguez
00:41:55.540 --> 00:41:59.490
Thank you, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Edmonson and Dr. Ellis.
00:41:59.490 --> 00:42:03.080
Thank you very much for the work you've completed
00:42:03.080 --> 00:42:04.993
over this period of time.
00:42:06.060 --> 00:42:08.915
It is definitely an undertaking, right?
00:42:08.915 --> 00:42:12.810
So thank you for your service to the entire profession
00:42:12.810 --> 00:42:15.434
in the state by providing this information.
00:42:15.434 --> 00:42:19.083
I'd like a little bit more clarification to understand,
00:42:20.170 --> 00:42:21.970
just to make sure I'm following.
00:42:21.970 --> 00:42:26.840
So the video I'm assuming is scored with the T-TESS rubric,
00:42:26.840 --> 00:42:28.810
is that correct?
00:42:28.810 --> 00:42:33.810
So I imagine that the evaluators have to undergo T-TESS
00:42:34.380 --> 00:42:39.000
training so that there is calibration and inter-rater
00:42:39.000 --> 00:42:42.780
reliability of those videos, okay.
00:42:42.780 --> 00:42:45.230
And in terms of the portfolio,
00:42:45.230 --> 00:42:46.990
can you elaborate a little bit more
00:42:46.990 --> 00:42:50.370
on what you are proposing in terms of,
00:42:50.370 --> 00:42:55.000
are you proposing that ETPs develop their own portfolio
00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:00.000
component or are you thinking of standard components
00:43:00.050 --> 00:43:03.430
required for everyone across the state?
00:43:03.430 --> 00:43:07.190
And then can you elaborate a little bit on the scoring
00:43:07.190 --> 00:43:10.020
of the portfolio, I'm not very clear on that part.
00:43:10.020 --> 00:43:12.690
I understand the scoring of the video,
00:43:12.690 --> 00:43:17.350
but I don't know of whether it would be via rubrics
00:43:17.350 --> 00:43:20.111
or how would that take place?
00:43:20.111 --> 00:43:22.900
Sure, and the short answer is yes.
00:43:22.900 --> 00:43:25.650
When you said, is it either or, it's yes.
00:43:25.650 --> 00:43:27.600
To both of those, but Christina, if you'd like,
00:43:27.600 --> 00:43:29.200
I'll let you explain a little bit more on that.
00:43:29.200 --> 00:43:31.260
Sure, I probably should have brought a pen with me up here
00:43:31.260 --> 00:43:33.041
so I could write down your questions.
00:43:33.041 --> 00:43:35.421
I think your first question, I'm sorry.
00:43:35.421 --> 00:43:37.380
Would you want me what's your first question was your second
00:43:37.380 --> 00:43:39.530
question is sticking out in my head.
00:43:39.530 --> 00:43:42.280
The first question was about the video and the T-TESS
00:43:42.280 --> 00:43:45.282
rubric, so that's a yes and yes, yes, yes, yes.
00:43:45.282 --> 00:43:50.282
On the portfolio, are you suggesting a common portfolio
00:43:50.660 --> 00:43:55.460
with common requirements across all EPS in the state
00:43:55.460 --> 00:43:59.790
so that it, or are you proposing that each EPP
00:43:59.790 --> 00:44:01.620
develop their own portfolio company?
00:44:01.620 --> 00:44:04.390
So we have provided in the packet that was handed out
00:44:04.390 --> 00:44:07.719
to you suggested rule texts for Chapter two to eight
00:44:07.719 --> 00:44:12.280
that you can look at that does not require a specific
00:44:12.280 --> 00:44:15.130
portfolio, however, Dr. Edmondson and I have worked
00:44:15.130 --> 00:44:18.070
really hard to establish the technology and the processes
00:44:18.070 --> 00:44:20.830
to allow any edprep program that wanted to participate
00:44:20.830 --> 00:44:23.850
with the T-TESS portfolio we developed to do so.
00:44:23.850 --> 00:44:26.800
And so I do believe that there are some educator preparation
00:44:26.800 --> 00:44:29.300
programs that are already in a place where they could
00:44:29.300 --> 00:44:30.950
facilitate this themselves.
00:44:30.950 --> 00:44:33.260
However, it would be a very large undertaking
00:44:33.260 --> 00:44:36.027
for programs that are not already doing something like this.
00:44:36.027 --> 00:44:39.696
And so we are here to help them part of the work that
00:44:39.696 --> 00:44:40.967
(indistinct) need to do.
00:44:40.967 --> 00:44:42.730
Yeah, and I'll add to that.
00:44:42.730 --> 00:44:45.550
I think if I'm understanding your question correctly,
00:44:45.550 --> 00:44:48.840
it's will there be, do all the portfolios across the state.
00:44:48.840 --> 00:44:50.660
Would they look just like this
00:44:50.660 --> 00:44:52.440
when they have these exact components?
00:44:52.440 --> 00:44:54.950
And so my broad, yes,
00:44:54.950 --> 00:44:57.290
was there will be required components.
00:44:57.290 --> 00:44:59.810
And they're based on the standards that this Board
00:44:59.810 --> 00:45:01.653
had put forward as expectations.
00:45:04.080 --> 00:45:09.080
Will EPPs have the agility to tailor that to local needs.
00:45:10.150 --> 00:45:11.670
I would say that's a yes as well.
00:45:11.670 --> 00:45:14.903
So there would be common elements that would be required,
00:45:14.903 --> 00:45:18.520
particularly if it were in rule, that everyone would do,
00:45:18.520 --> 00:45:20.470
but locally EPPs could add to that,
00:45:20.470 --> 00:45:22.363
if they wanted to add to that.
00:45:23.708 --> 00:45:28.417
And may I ask some follow-up questions.
00:45:37.465 --> 00:45:41.460
Would there be some common rubrics required or something
00:45:41.460 --> 00:45:45.890
similar to score the portfolios?
00:45:45.890 --> 00:45:50.060
So we are using the T-TESS rubrics to score the portfolio
00:45:50.060 --> 00:45:50.893
As well.
00:45:50.893 --> 00:45:53.880
Yes, so similar to, if you are a T-TESS appraiser,
00:45:53.880 --> 00:45:56.170
I know many of you are when you sit down
00:45:56.170 --> 00:45:58.900
and do your summative evaluation with any teacher,
00:45:58.900 --> 00:46:02.100
you ask them to bring student artifacts, their lesson plans.
00:46:02.100 --> 00:46:03.710
You've worked with them throughout the year,
00:46:03.710 --> 00:46:06.380
and you've seen all of their artifacts, similar to that,
00:46:06.380 --> 00:46:08.580
we're asking our teacher candidates to put together
00:46:08.580 --> 00:46:11.360
a portfolio that demonstrates what they've been able to do
00:46:11.360 --> 00:46:13.830
in their classrooms during a field experience
00:46:13.830 --> 00:46:16.840
or clinical teaching and so we are able very much
00:46:16.840 --> 00:46:20.930
like a T-TESS appraiser in a school would to review
00:46:20.930 --> 00:46:23.520
all of those artifacts and then video of their teaching
00:46:23.520 --> 00:46:26.250
to fill out a T-TESS rubric.
00:46:26.250 --> 00:46:29.573
And finally, can you please clarify for me,
00:46:30.584 --> 00:46:35.220
you're proposing that this be used for program completion
00:46:35.220 --> 00:46:39.530
or for certification, and thank you for clarifying earlier
00:46:39.530 --> 00:46:43.090
that you would expect this to be completed prior
00:46:43.090 --> 00:46:46.160
to the final clinical experience.
00:46:46.160 --> 00:46:51.160
I'm assuming even in a traditional program.
00:46:53.600 --> 00:46:58.370
Yes, sorry, is it only two at a time?
00:46:58.370 --> 00:47:01.690
I can't quite figure out when to turn off.
00:47:01.690 --> 00:47:05.340
So what we're recommending is that before a standard intern
00:47:05.340 --> 00:47:08.780
or probationary certificate is issued that the candidate
00:47:08.780 --> 00:47:10.790
have completed this successfully.
00:47:10.790 --> 00:47:12.640
So in a traditional program,
00:47:12.640 --> 00:47:15.310
that means they could do it during clinical teaching,
00:47:15.310 --> 00:47:17.830
but during an alternative certification program,
00:47:17.830 --> 00:47:20.620
they would need to do it during their field-based experience
00:47:20.620 --> 00:47:22.640
so that they can complete it before their teacher
00:47:22.640 --> 00:47:24.520
of record in the classroom.
00:47:24.520 --> 00:47:25.607
Yes, it with that.
00:47:25.607 --> 00:47:28.420
And T-TESS is not designed to be a certification exam.
00:47:28.420 --> 00:47:31.120
And so we're very conscientious of not trying
00:47:31.120 --> 00:47:33.200
to take a square peg and fit it into a round hole
00:47:33.200 --> 00:47:35.203
or into a round hole.
00:47:36.330 --> 00:47:39.264
What it is designed to do is to be a formative process
00:47:39.264 --> 00:47:43.430
that allows growth and a decision as to whether or not
00:47:43.430 --> 00:47:45.590
this person is ready to move forward.
00:47:45.590 --> 00:47:48.870
And so we've designed it to be part of the required
00:47:48.870 --> 00:47:52.200
curriculum where every candidates is required
00:47:52.200 --> 00:47:54.574
to do this before they're allowed to have
00:47:54.574 --> 00:47:57.550
any sort of license, especially in light of the fact
00:47:57.550 --> 00:47:59.840
that 60 plus percent of our teachers
00:47:59.840 --> 00:48:01.830
are in classrooms before any of this happens.
00:48:01.830 --> 00:48:05.640
This really adds value there to ensure that those candidates
00:48:05.640 --> 00:48:08.430
have more than 30 hours of observation
00:48:08.430 --> 00:48:10.810
before they walk in and impact children.
00:48:10.810 --> 00:48:12.900
Thank you very much for those clarifications.
00:48:12.900 --> 00:48:14.600
And I promise this is the last question
00:48:14.600 --> 00:48:17.143
and it will be a one question not multi-part.
00:48:18.365 --> 00:48:22.150
So then the one measure that's left or assessment
00:48:22.150 --> 00:48:23.770
that's left for certification
00:48:23.770 --> 00:48:28.357
would be the modified PPR, correct?
00:48:28.357 --> 00:48:29.524
Yes.
00:48:30.750 --> 00:48:32.770
I appreciate those questions 'cause they're helping me
00:48:32.770 --> 00:48:35.630
understand that I left behind on several of them.
00:48:35.630 --> 00:48:39.653
So thank you, Dr. Rodriguez, somebody Commissioner deputy.
00:48:43.570 --> 00:48:44.750
Yeah, that was very helpful.
00:48:44.750 --> 00:48:49.750
So the proposal is the T-TESS for program completion
00:48:50.950 --> 00:48:54.250
and a modified PPRS, the certification exam,
00:48:54.250 --> 00:48:57.263
not replacing the PPR, the certification exam.
00:48:58.240 --> 00:49:01.630
And then, but then you're adding a layer of external
00:49:01.630 --> 00:49:06.630
evaluation on the T-TESS as the program completion,
00:49:07.991 --> 00:49:12.991
we do a very similar type of assessment and evaluation
00:49:14.030 --> 00:49:16.540
of systems as part of our teacher incentive allotment
00:49:16.540 --> 00:49:18.170
that the Commissioner mentioned.
00:49:18.170 --> 00:49:22.580
And this is quite the in-depth process for us to check
00:49:22.580 --> 00:49:26.940
the validity of the data and make sure that the observations
00:49:26.940 --> 00:49:31.680
are actually tracking and are they do that districts
00:49:31.680 --> 00:49:34.180
do have this inter-rater reliability.
00:49:34.180 --> 00:49:37.330
So I'm curious, did you model like, well, one,
00:49:37.330 --> 00:49:40.210
do you see that as the state's role or somebody else's role
00:49:40.210 --> 00:49:43.160
that would be doing that evaluation and checking to make
00:49:43.160 --> 00:49:48.160
sure that the T-TESS program completion element is valid?
00:49:48.670 --> 00:49:51.780
And did you model how much you think that would cost
00:49:51.780 --> 00:49:54.882
based your own external reviewers and evaluation
00:49:54.882 --> 00:49:56.890
that you were doing?
00:49:56.890 --> 00:50:01.890
Yeah, the first question again, I'm so sorry.
00:50:04.470 --> 00:50:08.550
I think just who do you see doing that evaluation,
00:50:08.550 --> 00:50:11.410
external evaluation of the systems?
00:50:11.410 --> 00:50:14.390
So our conception of this is that it would be the edprep
00:50:14.390 --> 00:50:15.640
programs responsibility
00:50:15.640 --> 00:50:18.640
to facilitate the external evaluation.
00:50:18.640 --> 00:50:22.690
We have multiple models that we have worked with on this,
00:50:22.690 --> 00:50:25.860
what we've used so far, our administrators who are T-TESS
00:50:25.860 --> 00:50:27.782
appraisers to be the external,
00:50:27.782 --> 00:50:32.360
we have also considered putting together sort of a bank
00:50:32.360 --> 00:50:36.300
of volunteer, external evaluators who are T-TESS appraiser
00:50:36.300 --> 00:50:38.530
trained that maybe work for school districts,
00:50:38.530 --> 00:50:40.280
but could also work for an ed prep program,
00:50:40.280 --> 00:50:43.554
external to where the candidate is currently being trained.
00:50:43.554 --> 00:50:46.950
So we do have some ideas on how we could facilitate that.
00:50:46.950 --> 00:50:49.794
We do not expect that to be a cost that the state
00:50:49.794 --> 00:50:52.470
would carry or facilitates.
00:50:52.470 --> 00:50:57.460
So edprep programs would evaluate their own externally,
00:50:57.460 --> 00:51:01.040
or they would evaluate each other's you'll have like peers
00:51:01.040 --> 00:51:03.113
paired up to evaluate each other's?
00:51:04.410 --> 00:51:07.940
Potentially they could, if this Board or the agency
00:51:07.940 --> 00:51:10.117
wanted to put parameters around that.
00:51:10.117 --> 00:51:12.250
And they certainly could, but the biggest criteria would be
00:51:12.250 --> 00:51:15.040
that those people are T-TESS appraisers,
00:51:15.040 --> 00:51:16.140
acknowledged by the state.
00:51:16.140 --> 00:51:19.872
And so they have that level of preparation and expertise
00:51:19.872 --> 00:51:22.070
in what they're actually observing.
00:51:22.070 --> 00:51:25.860
And I think not dissimilar to the disparity we have across
00:51:25.860 --> 00:51:29.620
EPPs, you have really big EPS who have different levels
00:51:29.620 --> 00:51:31.810
of capacity as to what that would look like.
00:51:31.810 --> 00:51:35.150
You have very small EPS that might need to be
00:51:35.150 --> 00:51:37.810
part of consortium's or help or things like that.
00:51:37.810 --> 00:51:41.360
So, but I think looking at big parameters,
00:51:41.360 --> 00:51:44.640
big picture parameters of who are those evaluators,
00:51:44.640 --> 00:51:46.360
what does external evaluation look like?
00:51:46.360 --> 00:51:48.610
What criteria does it have to meet?
00:51:48.610 --> 00:51:52.058
And then the EPP is uniquely and individually accountable
00:51:52.058 --> 00:51:55.260
for meeting those parameters and reporting that data
00:51:55.260 --> 00:51:56.543
to the agency.
00:51:59.850 --> 00:52:03.350
One thing I would notice when we had this conversation
00:52:03.350 --> 00:52:06.900
last year, a lot of our conversation was around external
00:52:06.900 --> 00:52:09.280
evaluation, and what role should that play,
00:52:09.280 --> 00:52:12.140
and how much of an expense should it be?
00:52:12.140 --> 00:52:16.170
And so when we asked Dr Skidmore to analyze our data
00:52:16.170 --> 00:52:18.030
and the results came back,
00:52:18.030 --> 00:52:20.940
that our field supervisors were very reliably
00:52:20.940 --> 00:52:22.930
assessing our students.
00:52:22.930 --> 00:52:24.710
We started having conversations with many
00:52:24.710 --> 00:52:28.040
of the organizations that ended up signing onto our letter
00:52:28.040 --> 00:52:31.180
and all kinds of determined that if our field supervisors
00:52:31.180 --> 00:52:33.680
can reliably evaluate our candidates,
00:52:33.680 --> 00:52:37.170
that the need for an external evaluator on every portfolio
00:52:37.170 --> 00:52:39.840
is probably an expense that our candidates and the state
00:52:39.840 --> 00:52:42.750
and edprep programs, shouldn't bear if we're already getting
00:52:42.750 --> 00:52:45.830
reliable data on them, however,
00:52:45.830 --> 00:52:49.081
monitoring inter-rater reliability, ongoing is important,
00:52:49.081 --> 00:52:51.870
establishing it upfront and then leaving it alone
00:52:51.870 --> 00:52:53.170
is not sufficient.
00:52:53.170 --> 00:52:56.250
And so we have provided the provision that a certain
00:52:56.250 --> 00:52:58.910
percentage of portfolios be externally evaluated.
00:52:58.910 --> 00:53:00.510
So the inter-rater reliability
00:53:00.510 --> 00:53:02.013
can be consistently monitored.
00:53:03.950 --> 00:53:07.018
Okay, here's what I'm thinking are proposing,
00:53:07.018 --> 00:53:09.950
just to be fair to everybody that we begin to listen
00:53:09.950 --> 00:53:13.020
to the other speakers and to ask even of those speakers,
00:53:13.020 --> 00:53:15.510
if they would like to do a pro con and as part of their
00:53:15.510 --> 00:53:19.810
remarks on what's been said here with this proposal
00:53:19.810 --> 00:53:24.290
or with edTPA, then I think, I feel like I'm way behind
00:53:24.290 --> 00:53:27.420
on some of this I'm to catch up in my thinking.
00:53:27.420 --> 00:53:32.420
So yes, but so my thought is is that we'll get
00:53:34.098 --> 00:53:37.270
more of a balanced perspective as we listened to everybody.
00:53:37.270 --> 00:53:41.198
And then we can feed it back through what we're hearing here
00:53:41.198 --> 00:53:44.133
with these two doctors, yes Emily.
00:53:45.730 --> 00:53:48.350
Thank you, Dr. Kelly, thank you for sharing the data.
00:53:48.350 --> 00:53:52.550
It is encouraging to see the reliability of your external
00:53:52.550 --> 00:53:55.070
evaluation for the video portion.
00:53:55.070 --> 00:53:57.560
Can you clarify when you'll have data regarding
00:53:57.560 --> 00:54:00.680
the reliability of evaluation of the performance assessment
00:54:00.680 --> 00:54:04.280
portfolios, when will that data be available?
00:54:04.280 --> 00:54:06.970
Sure, those that's fall semester data.
00:54:06.970 --> 00:54:11.540
So those are just now coming in as everybody has completed
00:54:11.540 --> 00:54:15.270
the semester, so it will take a month,
00:54:15.270 --> 00:54:17.482
a couple of months in the spring.
00:54:17.482 --> 00:54:19.550
So sometime early to mid spring, we should have,
00:54:19.550 --> 00:54:20.520
I would say mid spring,
00:54:20.520 --> 00:54:23.180
since they have to go out for external evaluation,
00:54:23.180 --> 00:54:24.500
we should have that information.
00:54:24.500 --> 00:54:26.870
Many of our participating EPPs have done
00:54:26.870 --> 00:54:28.610
what they've turned grading parties.
00:54:28.610 --> 00:54:30.670
They've gotten all of their field supervisors in a room
00:54:30.670 --> 00:54:33.070
and fed them and give them drinks and whatever,
00:54:33.070 --> 00:54:34.377
and let them score the portfolios.
00:54:34.377 --> 00:54:35.210
(indistinct)
00:54:35.210 --> 00:54:36.200
Right of course, but.
00:54:38.267 --> 00:54:39.879
I was about to say.
00:54:39.879 --> 00:54:43.106
I didn't know, I needed to clarify that.
00:54:43.106 --> 00:54:46.740
So many of the.
00:54:46.740 --> 00:54:49.933
Yes, hunch non-alcoholic.
00:54:50.970 --> 00:54:53.890
So many of the internal spores are already in,
00:54:53.890 --> 00:54:56.700
we do no need to turn around and turn and send them out
00:54:56.700 --> 00:54:57.533
for external reviews.
00:54:57.533 --> 00:54:59.938
That's the portion that will take more time.
00:54:59.938 --> 00:55:01.000
The internal sports have already gone back
00:55:01.000 --> 00:55:02.924
to the teacher candidates.
00:55:02.924 --> 00:55:04.340
So they've gotten the feedback from their supervisor.
00:55:04.340 --> 00:55:06.030
Thank you, and then additionally,
00:55:06.030 --> 00:55:08.380
in terms of who has the authority
00:55:08.380 --> 00:55:10.090
and kind of responsibility,
00:55:10.090 --> 00:55:14.010
what you're suggesting to hold locally at the EPP level,
00:55:14.010 --> 00:55:17.010
rather than here with the SBEC would be both setting
00:55:17.010 --> 00:55:20.960
the passing standard would be set by EPPs in collaboration
00:55:20.960 --> 00:55:24.260
with their local one app advisory Board.
00:55:24.260 --> 00:55:29.260
So EPP by EPP, as well as the securing and training
00:55:29.500 --> 00:55:32.220
and validation of the external scores,
00:55:32.220 --> 00:55:34.960
both of those components would be the responsibility
00:55:34.960 --> 00:55:37.310
of the individual app, is that correct?
00:55:37.310 --> 00:55:39.050
With approval by the agency.
00:55:39.050 --> 00:55:41.703
So it could work either way.
00:55:42.550 --> 00:55:46.810
We're trying to think about the context of the locally EPPs
00:55:46.810 --> 00:55:49.190
and the districts they work with.
00:55:49.190 --> 00:55:52.522
And so that was our thought was that that would happen
00:55:52.522 --> 00:55:55.470
in conjunction with their advisory Board,
00:55:55.470 --> 00:55:57.080
then subject to agency approval.
00:55:57.080 --> 00:55:59.980
If on the flip side, the state wanted to say,
00:55:59.980 --> 00:56:03.400
here's the passing score, here's the state bank
00:56:03.400 --> 00:56:06.110
of external evaluators, that's great too,
00:56:06.110 --> 00:56:10.280
but we were trying to mitigate the load on the agency
00:56:10.280 --> 00:56:12.490
or the state and kind of defer some of that back
00:56:12.490 --> 00:56:14.743
to the local levels, sure.
00:56:17.470 --> 00:56:21.010
Okay, all right, well stay tuned
00:56:22.203 --> 00:56:24.263
and let's to our other speakers.
00:56:25.630 --> 00:56:28.530
Feel free to comment on what you've heard here in addition
00:56:29.467 --> 00:56:32.593
to, so remember two minutes per speaker.
00:56:35.520 --> 00:56:37.043
Yeah, okay, I get it, yeah.
00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:42.179
Dr. Gina Anderson, Texas Woman's University,
00:56:42.179 --> 00:56:47.010
and ADOT and on deck is Dr. Alexandra Level
00:56:47.010 --> 00:56:49.593
and Dr. Cynthia Savage.
00:57:08.360 --> 00:57:11.363
Thank you, Jessica, for passing those out for me,
00:57:13.229 --> 00:57:17.440
and good afternoon, Dr. Kelly and members of the Board.
00:57:17.440 --> 00:57:21.310
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again today
00:57:21.310 --> 00:57:23.810
because of increased teacher shortages,
00:57:23.810 --> 00:57:26.640
the timing of sweeping legislative mandates,
00:57:26.640 --> 00:57:30.170
impacting educator preparation and ongoing concerns
00:57:30.170 --> 00:57:33.570
about the edTPA as a certification exam.
00:57:33.570 --> 00:57:36.100
I am one of 100s of stakeholders recommending
00:57:36.100 --> 00:57:38.730
a locally scored performance assessment,
00:57:38.730 --> 00:57:42.170
be implemented as a curriculum requirement,
00:57:42.170 --> 00:57:45.390
and that the PPR either in its original
00:57:45.390 --> 00:57:49.680
or an enhanced version remain the certification exam.
00:57:49.680 --> 00:57:52.180
We further recommend that satisfactory completion
00:57:52.180 --> 00:57:55.020
of this performance assessment be required before issuance
00:57:55.020 --> 00:57:58.450
of any certificate, including probationary.
00:57:58.450 --> 00:58:02.287
Prior to the COVID pandemic, Texas was already facing
00:58:02.287 --> 00:58:04.429
a severe teacher shortage.
00:58:04.429 --> 00:58:08.550
TEA data shows that there was nearly a 30% drop
00:58:08.550 --> 00:58:11.760
in the number of newly certified teachers in Texas
00:58:11.760 --> 00:58:15.440
in between 2015 and 2020.
00:58:15.440 --> 00:58:19.180
With about one third fewer teachers in the pipeline now,
00:58:19.180 --> 00:58:22.920
ongoing COVID concerns and the historical great resignation
00:58:22.920 --> 00:58:26.493
taking place, teacher shortages will only get worse.
00:58:26.493 --> 00:58:29.320
In addition, the legislature has made sweeping
00:58:29.320 --> 00:58:31.280
and significant changes to the requirements
00:58:31.280 --> 00:58:33.220
place on edprep programs.
00:58:33.220 --> 00:58:35.660
As you know house bill three led to the science of teaching,
00:58:35.660 --> 00:58:39.860
reading exam required the vast majority of our candidates,
00:58:39.860 --> 00:58:42.280
along with all the other exams I pass,
00:58:42.280 --> 00:58:45.600
as well as Jessica referred earlier to other house
00:58:45.600 --> 00:58:48.510
and Senate bills that must be implemented.
00:58:48.510 --> 00:58:51.560
There are several converging demands while we continue
00:58:51.560 --> 00:58:54.429
to work through the challenges of increasing teacher
00:58:54.429 --> 00:58:57.404
shortages, in order to ensure that all teacher candidates
00:58:57.404 --> 00:59:01.130
have received quality preparation before day one
00:59:01.130 --> 00:59:03.900
in the classroom, the most effective solution
00:59:03.900 --> 00:59:06.646
would be to require a locally score performance assessment
00:59:06.646 --> 00:59:10.140
as a curriculum requirement before issuance
00:59:10.140 --> 00:59:12.070
of a probationary certificate.
00:59:12.070 --> 00:59:14.360
This gives all of our candidates the opportunity
00:59:14.360 --> 00:59:16.200
to integrate these legislative mandates
00:59:16.200 --> 00:59:18.460
and the new requirements into their tools
00:59:18.460 --> 00:59:21.713
for practice before completing an internship.
00:59:26.350 --> 00:59:27.500
I answer any questions.
00:59:29.960 --> 00:59:34.423
Dr. Alexandra Level, on deck is Dr. Cynthia Savage
00:59:36.910 --> 00:59:38.880
and Dr. Michael Vizinga.
00:59:44.560 --> 00:59:48.120
I'm new at this, I'm definitely not new.
00:59:48.120 --> 00:59:49.890
Good afternoon, my name is Alexandra Level.
00:59:49.890 --> 00:59:52.800
I'm the Associate Dean for Educator Preparation
00:59:52.800 --> 00:59:54.950
at the University of North Texas in Denton.
00:59:56.720 --> 00:59:58.520
The heart of good decision-making and business
00:59:58.520 --> 01:00:01.340
has two critical elements, cost benefit analysis,
01:00:01.340 --> 01:00:04.050
and the analysis of current and predicted impact,
01:00:04.050 --> 01:00:05.720
what my business professor father called
01:00:05.720 --> 01:00:07.320
reading the TEA leaves.
01:00:07.320 --> 01:00:09.630
Our question today is the exact same question
01:00:09.630 --> 01:00:12.350
as it was in February of 2020,
01:00:12.350 --> 01:00:14.730
will adopting edTPA as a performance measure,
01:00:14.730 --> 01:00:18.100
improve the quality of our engineering teacher force.
01:00:18.100 --> 01:00:21.470
But now it is November of 2021.
01:00:21.470 --> 01:00:24.240
And the factors that we need to enter into our cost benefit
01:00:24.240 --> 01:00:26.590
equation are wildly different.
01:00:26.590 --> 01:00:29.420
We need to look at the same question with fresh eyes,
01:00:29.420 --> 01:00:31.330
particularly as to how
01:00:31.330 --> 01:00:33.900
they have impacted our teacher pipeline.
01:00:33.900 --> 01:00:36.700
The US is experiencing not just teachers,
01:00:36.700 --> 01:00:40.410
the worst labor crisis in decades. Dr. Anderson referenced
01:00:40.410 --> 01:00:42.010
the great retirement of the highly
01:00:42.010 --> 01:00:45.600
educated baby boomers that we've relied upon as the backbone
01:00:45.600 --> 01:00:47.030
of our labor force.
01:00:47.030 --> 01:00:49.850
It's now been depleted because of COVID according
01:00:49.850 --> 01:00:52.100
to Pew Research Center in July, August,
01:00:52.100 --> 01:00:57.060
and September of 2020 3.2 million baby boomers retired at
01:00:57.060 --> 01:00:59.990
the rate of 10,000 people a day,
01:00:59.990 --> 01:01:03.650
according to the United Bureau of Labor Statistics,
01:01:03.650 --> 01:01:06.180
their replacements, the millennials,
01:01:06.180 --> 01:01:10.730
the individuals in the 27 to 54 age group as of March, 2021,
01:01:10.730 --> 01:01:12.950
we're only participating in the labor force
01:01:12.950 --> 01:01:15.403
at a rate of 62%.
01:01:16.352 --> 01:01:17.380
And if you're a superintendent,
01:01:17.380 --> 01:01:18.910
I don't need to tell you this. I already know this.
01:01:18.910 --> 01:01:20.810
I'm probably giving you a worst headache by telling you
01:01:20.810 --> 01:01:22.290
all of this.
01:01:22.290 --> 01:01:24.700
So really in short the pipeline,
01:01:24.700 --> 01:01:26.670
we're not just suffering from a flow in the beginning.
01:01:26.670 --> 01:01:29.650
The pipeline is leaking at both ends.
01:01:29.650 --> 01:01:31.540
We know that teaching right now is harder
01:01:31.540 --> 01:01:32.560
than it has ever been.
01:01:32.560 --> 01:01:35.330
Stress and burnout are becoming endemic to the life
01:01:35.330 --> 01:01:37.910
of a teacher, in response to the labor shortage,
01:01:37.910 --> 01:01:40.760
corporations and businesses are scrambling to attract
01:01:40.760 --> 01:01:43.810
employees to fill millions of vacant positions,
01:01:43.810 --> 01:01:46.170
better benefits training on the job that allows people
01:01:46.170 --> 01:01:48.700
to start immediately flexible and remote work schedules
01:01:48.700 --> 01:01:52.370
are being used to reduce barriers into other fields.
01:01:52.370 --> 01:01:57.100
UNT supports the recommendation of my colleagues
01:01:57.100 --> 01:02:02.100
that we put the T-TESSs into code into tech.
01:02:04.560 --> 01:02:06.063
And modified PPR, tank you.
01:02:08.340 --> 01:02:11.230
Dr. Cynthia Savage, Education Deans
01:02:11.230 --> 01:02:13.340
of Independent Colleges and Universities,
01:02:13.340 --> 01:02:16.903
on deck as Dr. Michael Vizinga and Dr. Lillian Harp.
01:02:17.770 --> 01:02:20.290
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
01:02:20.290 --> 01:02:22.550
My name is Cynthia Savage, and I serve as President
01:02:22.550 --> 01:02:24.680
of the Education Deans of Independent Colleges
01:02:24.680 --> 01:02:26.320
and Universities of Texas.
01:02:26.320 --> 01:02:29.500
I'm here on behalf of the voices of preparation programs
01:02:29.500 --> 01:02:31.940
passed in Texas private universities.
01:02:31.940 --> 01:02:34.230
I also serve as associate Dean of undergraduate studies
01:02:34.230 --> 01:02:36.760
and the college of education at TCU,
01:02:36.760 --> 01:02:39.410
and keeping abreast of mandates, which involve edTPA
01:02:39.410 --> 01:02:41.840
and other states, I want to ensure that you're aware
01:02:41.840 --> 01:02:44.600
of recent and ongoing developments in Illinois.
01:02:44.600 --> 01:02:47.717
EdTPA was first mandated in Illinois in 2015.
01:02:47.717 --> 01:02:50.460
And several stakeholders have been advocating to unwind
01:02:50.460 --> 01:02:52.300
this in recent years.
01:02:52.300 --> 01:02:54.627
Effective as of August 6th, 2021,
01:02:54.627 --> 01:02:57.330
Illinois Governor signed an amendment into law
01:02:57.330 --> 01:03:00.310
that prohibits the requirements of videotaping
01:03:00.310 --> 01:03:02.040
and clinical teachers' performance
01:03:02.040 --> 01:03:04.048
as an element of licensure.
01:03:04.048 --> 01:03:07.070
While this doesn't remove edTPA as a requirement,
01:03:07.070 --> 01:03:09.140
it does achieve the primary goal of protecting
01:03:09.140 --> 01:03:13.060
the confidentiality of clinical teachers in K-12 students.
01:03:13.060 --> 01:03:16.340
Third-party vendors are sometimes used in scoring edTPA's
01:03:16.340 --> 01:03:18.630
video submissions, and some recordings have been leaked
01:03:18.630 --> 01:03:22.058
online, you can easily search for these as an element
01:03:22.058 --> 01:03:24.930
on YouTube, in a quick search of my own,
01:03:24.930 --> 01:03:27.480
I found videos showing confidential information,
01:03:27.480 --> 01:03:31.120
such as children's names, faces in schoolwork.
01:03:31.120 --> 01:03:33.623
I also noticed these videos have 1000s of views.
01:03:34.700 --> 01:03:37.130
In addition, this amended law is an important step
01:03:37.130 --> 01:03:39.750
that highlights reasons stakeholders are advocating
01:03:39.750 --> 01:03:43.070
for Illinois to remove edTPA requirements.
01:03:43.070 --> 01:03:44.870
I can only share one of these today.
01:03:46.600 --> 01:03:49.590
EdTPA has not been found to enhance student success,
01:03:49.590 --> 01:03:52.670
particularly among underrepresented populations.
01:03:52.670 --> 01:03:54.830
In a report published in December, 2020
01:03:54.830 --> 01:03:57.400
by Illinois Labor and Employment Relations.
01:03:57.400 --> 01:03:59.440
It was revealed that on average black students
01:03:59.440 --> 01:04:00.980
had scored lower on math,
01:04:00.980 --> 01:04:03.540
as well as reading state assessments in Illinois
01:04:03.540 --> 01:04:04.513
since the mandate.
01:04:05.420 --> 01:04:08.570
In addition, among eighth graders at GPA was associated
01:04:08.570 --> 01:04:12.137
with a statistically significant decrease in reading scores.
01:04:13.580 --> 01:04:16.550
So currently a bill is aiming to decrease testing
01:04:16.550 --> 01:04:19.340
requirements in order to increase the number of teachers
01:04:19.340 --> 01:04:20.400
in the states.
01:04:20.400 --> 01:04:24.120
This bill would or more would remove teacher performance
01:04:24.120 --> 01:04:26.370
assessment as the licensure requirements.
01:04:26.370 --> 01:04:27.570
Thank you for your time.
01:04:29.620 --> 01:04:33.930
Dr. Michael Vizinga, UTSA,
01:04:33.930 --> 01:04:38.340
on deck, Dr. Lillian Hartman and Dr. Lisa Brown.
01:04:38.340 --> 01:04:40.850
I am Mike Vizinga, from UTSA.
01:04:40.850 --> 01:04:45.711
In October, Ms. McLaughlin explained that you needed edTPA
01:04:45.711 --> 01:04:48.520
in order to triangulate data on your new teachers.
01:04:48.520 --> 01:04:50.970
And I'd like to take a moment to talk about celestial
01:04:50.970 --> 01:04:54.099
navigation and I'm gonna let all of you be my stars.
01:04:54.099 --> 01:04:57.280
If I wanted to find out where I was, I would choose a star,
01:04:57.280 --> 01:05:00.980
say Dr. Rodriguez measure how far away I was and get a line
01:05:00.980 --> 01:05:03.920
of position we're stretching to my left and right.
01:05:03.920 --> 01:05:05.580
Sort of like this.
01:05:05.580 --> 01:05:07.320
I need more information from that.
01:05:07.320 --> 01:05:10.680
So I would choose the second star, Dr. Galvin
01:05:10.680 --> 01:05:12.940
and get two lines like this.
01:05:12.940 --> 01:05:16.340
There's some error in both. So I need a third star,
01:05:16.340 --> 01:05:20.030
same Mr. Coleman, and I ended up with a picture
01:05:20.030 --> 01:05:21.820
that looks like this.
01:05:21.820 --> 01:05:24.990
This is the triangle that Ms. McLaughlin is talking about.
01:05:24.990 --> 01:05:27.430
This is what we mean by triangulating data.
01:05:27.430 --> 01:05:29.660
And that triangle is what we call a fix.
01:05:29.660 --> 01:05:32.630
Smaller of that triangle is the more confident I can be,
01:05:32.630 --> 01:05:33.780
that that's where I am.
01:05:34.730 --> 01:05:39.200
If I make a mistake and choose the wrong star,
01:05:39.200 --> 01:05:41.970
nothing personal, but if I choose Ms. Isaacs instead,
01:05:41.970 --> 01:05:43.000
so I have two stars,
01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:45.810
very close to each other and end up with something
01:05:45.810 --> 01:05:48.570
that looks like this, an equals sign.
01:05:48.570 --> 01:05:50.593
What does this have to do with that GPA?
01:05:51.860 --> 01:05:56.860
If you experienced this with Sylvia Moreno in October,
01:05:57.220 --> 01:06:00.105
she had her field supervisor saying she was here.
01:06:00.105 --> 01:06:04.360
She had the edTPA evaluator saying she was here.
01:06:04.360 --> 01:06:06.173
How do you resolve that conflict?
01:06:08.415 --> 01:06:10.553
I'm not sure if I should answer your question,
01:06:10.553 --> 01:06:13.083
I'll keep going, I'll keep going.
01:06:14.280 --> 01:06:16.767
Oh, thank you, that's what that is.
01:06:16.767 --> 01:06:18.980
You asked, how do you fix this?
01:06:18.980 --> 01:06:20.350
I'll give you two suggestions.
01:06:20.350 --> 01:06:22.940
The first is that the observation instruments that you use
01:06:22.940 --> 01:06:25.660
now, that line of position is a dash line.
01:06:25.660 --> 01:06:29.240
It has more holes than dash, and by filling those holes,
01:06:29.240 --> 01:06:32.240
you can be more sure that your triangle is smallest.
01:06:32.240 --> 01:06:36.350
Second, your PPR measure right now is not a single line.
01:06:36.350 --> 01:06:39.760
It is multiple lines and it candidate with a score
01:06:39.760 --> 01:06:44.760
between 60 and 90 on the PPR can pass, you can fix that.
01:06:45.090 --> 01:06:46.577
Please consider, thank you.
01:06:49.170 --> 01:06:52.010
Dr. Lillian Hartman, urban teachers,
01:06:52.010 --> 01:06:57.010
DFW on deck, Dr. Lisa Brown and Kelly Amadi.
01:06:57.270 --> 01:06:59.266
Let's hold up one second here, Dr. Loft,
01:06:59.266 --> 01:07:00.843
if you have a question.
01:07:01.930 --> 01:07:03.850
No, thank you, Dr. Kelly,
01:07:03.850 --> 01:07:06.023
I do have to leave earlier this morning,
01:07:06.023 --> 01:07:07.260
I talked to you earlier about.
01:07:07.260 --> 01:07:08.580
Yes, oh, okay, yes, sir.
01:07:08.580 --> 01:07:09.765
So I just want to let you know, I'm sorry.
01:07:09.765 --> 01:07:10.598
I'm gonna be off.
01:07:10.598 --> 01:07:11.850
Thank you for staying with us.
01:07:11.850 --> 01:07:14.604
We'll miss this conversation though, this is.
01:07:14.604 --> 01:07:16.763
Yeah, that's excellent, okay.
01:07:18.300 --> 01:07:20.650
Okay, these I'm Dr. Lillian Hartman
01:07:20.650 --> 01:07:22.380
and I'm with the urban teachers master's program
01:07:22.380 --> 01:07:25.200
in the Dallas Fort worth area, which we just received
01:07:25.200 --> 01:07:26.240
or is coming around to you.
01:07:26.240 --> 01:07:27.910
I have several teachers that would have loved
01:07:27.910 --> 01:07:30.250
to have been here today, but they are in the classroom,
01:07:30.250 --> 01:07:32.890
but they wanted to give testimony for their experience
01:07:32.890 --> 01:07:35.940
with edTPA and this, so they wrote it.
01:07:35.940 --> 01:07:38.163
Do you have access to it in front of you.
01:07:39.220 --> 01:07:40.920
For the past two and a half years?
01:07:40.920 --> 01:07:43.136
Our teacher prep program has been
01:07:43.136 --> 01:07:44.840
in the edTPA pilot for Texas.
01:07:44.840 --> 01:07:47.550
I've been involved in the process from working to set up
01:07:47.550 --> 01:07:49.390
the rollout of, with our novice teachers
01:07:49.390 --> 01:07:51.910
to meeting regularly throughout the year,
01:07:51.910 --> 01:07:54.350
due to our various submission dates.
01:07:54.350 --> 01:07:56.600
I have noticed in my teachers whom I have coached
01:07:56.600 --> 01:07:57.940
in the assessment portfolio,
01:07:57.940 --> 01:07:59.960
changes in their understanding and knowledge
01:07:59.960 --> 01:08:03.530
of lesson planning, novice teachers learn about how to plan
01:08:03.530 --> 01:08:06.050
a lesson based on a standard or teaks,
01:08:06.050 --> 01:08:07.790
and learn how to break down that standard
01:08:07.790 --> 01:08:10.230
into bite sized teachable objectives.
01:08:10.230 --> 01:08:12.970
They practice that in our courses and can replicate
01:08:12.970 --> 01:08:14.930
this process in the classroom.
01:08:14.930 --> 01:08:17.820
Even when teachers are given lesson plans on their campuses
01:08:17.820 --> 01:08:19.860
that aligned to their scope and sequence,
01:08:19.860 --> 01:08:22.330
they can teach exactly what is given to them.
01:08:22.330 --> 01:08:25.610
However, experiencing how to develop a construct
01:08:25.610 --> 01:08:26.630
over several lessons,
01:08:26.630 --> 01:08:28.930
through understanding and scaffolding that is necessary
01:08:28.930 --> 01:08:31.270
for their students to access this knowledge and skill
01:08:31.270 --> 01:08:33.500
came from the portfolio process.
01:08:33.500 --> 01:08:36.090
Through this assessment, teachers are given an opportunity
01:08:36.090 --> 01:08:39.120
to demonstrate their understanding of the lesson cycle
01:08:39.120 --> 01:08:41.590
and all the critical components of preparing
01:08:41.590 --> 01:08:43.760
and delivering a learning segment.
01:08:43.760 --> 01:08:46.227
Teachers have gone through this process,
01:08:46.227 --> 01:08:48.418
has all processes also been noticed,
01:08:48.418 --> 01:08:50.690
noticed by their administrators and have been advanced
01:08:50.690 --> 01:08:53.870
as lead teachers or teachers have PD for lesson planning
01:08:53.870 --> 01:08:56.570
not only on their campus, but at other campuses,
01:08:56.570 --> 01:08:59.420
working with the edTPA portfolio has also improved
01:08:59.420 --> 01:09:01.620
my support as an instructor in courses,
01:09:01.620 --> 01:09:03.560
professor and courses and my support is a coach
01:09:03.560 --> 01:09:05.220
on their campuses.
01:09:05.220 --> 01:09:08.120
This assessment gives a segway, it gives a blick.
01:09:08.120 --> 01:09:13.120
It gives a point of to touch of students as a, excuse me,
01:09:15.330 --> 01:09:17.820
it will help well, gives a bird's-eye view.
01:09:17.820 --> 01:09:21.323
Let's say it that way of a teacher's potential.
01:09:22.180 --> 01:09:24.639
It doesn't limit them, thank you.
01:09:24.639 --> 01:09:25.903
And I apologize, thank you.
01:09:27.410 --> 01:09:31.510
Dr. Lisa Brown, Austin Community College,
01:09:31.510 --> 01:09:34.563
on deck Kelly and Matti and Sheila Whitford.
01:09:35.540 --> 01:09:36.730
Thank you for having me.
01:09:36.730 --> 01:09:38.880
I've worked for the past two years as a regional coordinator
01:09:38.880 --> 01:09:41.440
for the edTPA pilot supporting educator preparation
01:09:41.440 --> 01:09:42.910
programs throughout Texas.
01:09:42.910 --> 01:09:44.920
I'm a national academy member for AACT
01:09:44.920 --> 01:09:47.090
and I provide edTPA training.
01:09:47.090 --> 01:09:50.400
I'm also a national score for the edTPA elementary math
01:09:50.400 --> 01:09:52.080
and literacy portfolios.
01:09:52.080 --> 01:09:54.500
I'm also an instructor for Austin Community College.
01:09:54.500 --> 01:09:57.050
I've made meaningful adjustments and changes
01:09:57.050 --> 01:09:59.410
in my curriculum in relation to edTPA,
01:09:59.410 --> 01:10:00.970
but I do not teach to the test.
01:10:00.970 --> 01:10:03.230
I teach good classroom practice.
01:10:03.230 --> 01:10:05.640
I've witnessed it, edTPA does work in an alternative
01:10:05.640 --> 01:10:08.720
certification program because in completing edTPA
01:10:08.720 --> 01:10:11.770
candidates, take a focus, look at what they do every day
01:10:11.770 --> 01:10:13.174
in their classrooms.
01:10:13.174 --> 01:10:14.227
PPR assess his knowledge of educational theory
01:10:14.227 --> 01:10:16.650
and the structure of education in Texas.
01:10:16.650 --> 01:10:19.500
The edTPA takes three to five hours of actual classroom
01:10:19.500 --> 01:10:22.920
practice and the application of theory under a microscope,
01:10:22.920 --> 01:10:24.190
it is challenging.
01:10:24.190 --> 01:10:25.890
It does ask more of our candidates
01:10:25.890 --> 01:10:27.850
and it does require more programs,
01:10:27.850 --> 01:10:30.780
but the data that results provides evidence of teaching
01:10:30.780 --> 01:10:34.290
practice in Texas classrooms with Texas students and a clear
01:10:34.290 --> 01:10:37.450
picture of candidate readiness to meet the learning needs
01:10:37.450 --> 01:10:38.830
of their students.
01:10:38.830 --> 01:10:40.960
In my courses, I teach my candidates that assessment
01:10:40.960 --> 01:10:43.600
is for the student, assessment is not just a way
01:10:44.554 --> 01:10:46.340
to give a grade, it's a way to provide feedback
01:10:46.340 --> 01:10:49.420
to the teacher and the student of their growth and mastery.
01:10:49.420 --> 01:10:51.410
EdTPA provides a clear view of strengths
01:10:51.410 --> 01:10:52.540
and areas for growth.
01:10:52.540 --> 01:10:55.000
It gives candidates knowledge of their next steps
01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:57.440
on the path to becoming effective teachers,
01:10:57.440 --> 01:10:58.690
areas that are of concern to me.
01:10:58.690 --> 01:11:00.400
If we have implement edTPA,
01:11:00.400 --> 01:11:03.040
our elementary candidates are heavily tested.
01:11:03.040 --> 01:11:05.960
I would recommend eliminating task four for elementary
01:11:05.960 --> 01:11:08.640
candidates, provide choice for elementary candidates
01:11:08.640 --> 01:11:12.350
between elementary literacy and elementary math portfolios
01:11:12.350 --> 01:11:14.270
require only one portfolio of candidates
01:11:14.270 --> 01:11:16.410
with multiple certification areas.
01:11:16.410 --> 01:11:17.910
Cost is an issue.
01:11:17.910 --> 01:11:21.040
My home state of Utah eliminated teacher licensing fees
01:11:21.040 --> 01:11:23.390
through legislative changes that this could be
01:11:23.390 --> 01:11:25.720
a way to offset costs.
01:11:25.720 --> 01:11:28.125
If there is another choice that would better meet the needs
01:11:28.125 --> 01:11:31.800
of Texas programs, traditional and alternative,
01:11:31.800 --> 01:11:34.330
Texas teacher candidates and Texas students,
01:11:34.330 --> 01:11:37.390
that choice should be explored and evaluated for viability
01:11:37.390 --> 01:11:38.940
for all programs.
01:11:38.940 --> 01:11:41.740
I am concerned about the implementation of T-TESS,
01:11:41.740 --> 01:11:44.040
the T-TESS model in alternative programs,
01:11:44.040 --> 01:11:46.320
particularly for candidates who work full time,
01:11:46.320 --> 01:11:47.700
and have a hard time completing
01:11:47.700 --> 01:11:50.307
all of their observation hours, thank you.
01:11:54.230 --> 01:11:57.670
Kelly Amadi, on deck, our Sheila Whitford
01:11:57.670 --> 01:11:59.243
and Dr. Michael Martyr.
01:12:06.454 --> 01:12:08.800
Hi, good afternoon, my name is Kelly Amadi.
01:12:08.800 --> 01:12:11.270
Thank you SBEC for having me here today.
01:12:11.270 --> 01:12:14.010
I am currently a Texas reading academies cohort leader
01:12:14.010 --> 01:12:17.080
for Lockhart ISD, I've worked in public education
01:12:17.080 --> 01:12:20.148
for 11 years, serving as a K-12 special education teacher,
01:12:20.148 --> 01:12:22.970
a fourth grade teacher and an instructional coach,
01:12:22.970 --> 01:12:24.760
all in title one schools.
01:12:24.760 --> 01:12:26.360
I've been awarded teacher of the year,
01:12:26.360 --> 01:12:29.105
served on two rounds of TES, Texas resource review,
01:12:29.105 --> 01:12:32.170
and I'm a current Teach Plus Texas policy fellow.
01:12:32.170 --> 01:12:34.560
Through this work, I have had the honor of serving
01:12:34.560 --> 01:12:36.600
as a mentor to first-year teachers.
01:12:36.600 --> 01:12:38.710
And that is why I would like to declare my support
01:12:38.710 --> 01:12:40.360
for the edTPA.
01:12:40.360 --> 01:12:42.830
As an instructional coach, one of my main responsibilities
01:12:42.830 --> 01:12:45.100
at the beginning of every school year is to work
01:12:45.100 --> 01:12:47.260
with first year teachers and support them during
01:12:47.260 --> 01:12:49.300
these first tumultuous months.
01:12:49.300 --> 01:12:51.340
A few years ago, I was working with a teacher,
01:12:51.340 --> 01:12:52.173
a first-year teacher,
01:12:52.173 --> 01:12:54.230
and a second career teacher who completed
01:12:54.230 --> 01:12:56.550
an alternative certification program.
01:12:56.550 --> 01:12:58.930
She had passed all her tests, aced her interview,
01:12:58.930 --> 01:13:00.650
and yet she was drowning.
01:13:00.650 --> 01:13:03.529
While she passed tests in theory, she failed in practice.
01:13:03.529 --> 01:13:05.760
Students were running rampant in her classroom
01:13:05.760 --> 01:13:07.930
and her reading and math scores were well below those
01:13:07.930 --> 01:13:09.110
of her teammates.
01:13:09.110 --> 01:13:11.010
Even after years of intensive support,
01:13:11.010 --> 01:13:12.670
this teacher's contract was not renewed,
01:13:12.670 --> 01:13:14.980
and she left the profession entirely.
01:13:14.980 --> 01:13:17.158
Unfortunately, this is all too true for many,
01:13:17.158 --> 01:13:20.050
with many teachers leaving the profession in the first five
01:13:20.050 --> 01:13:22.876
years, whether university or alt cert,
01:13:22.876 --> 01:13:25.860
on-prem teachers, often state that they felt unprepared
01:13:25.860 --> 01:13:27.900
for such a difficult profession and that their teacher
01:13:27.900 --> 01:13:31.090
preparation program did not adequately prepare them.
01:13:31.090 --> 01:13:33.870
As many have said today, keeping teachers in the profession
01:13:33.870 --> 01:13:36.530
is paramount and it starts with high expectations
01:13:36.530 --> 01:13:38.360
at the certification level.
01:13:38.360 --> 01:13:43.160
EdTPA would raise the bar on prospective teachers
01:13:43.160 --> 01:13:44.790
as well as give them a better understanding
01:13:44.790 --> 01:13:46.760
of what the job of teaching entails.
01:13:46.760 --> 01:13:49.280
This would also hold educator preparation programs,
01:13:49.280 --> 01:13:52.870
more accountable for the quality of future teachers,
01:13:52.870 --> 01:13:54.750
they pass out of their programs.
01:13:54.750 --> 01:13:57.420
In conclusion, I support the implementation of edTPA
01:13:57.420 --> 01:13:59.310
for teacher certification in Texas.
01:13:59.310 --> 01:14:02.120
And I hope you'll vote in favor of replacing the PPR
01:14:02.120 --> 01:14:04.153
with the edTPA, thank you for your time.
01:14:08.400 --> 01:14:10.730
Last call for Sheila Whitford
01:14:10.730 --> 01:14:13.146
and Dr. Michael Martyr.
01:14:13.146 --> 01:14:14.479
Dr. Michael Martyr is giving
01:14:14.479 --> 01:14:16.600
a (indistinct) right now.
01:14:16.600 --> 01:14:21.600
Okay, the next three names Dr. Andrea Chevalier,
01:14:21.990 --> 01:14:25.443
on deck, Dr. Tim Miller and Teresa Hinohos.
01:14:38.060 --> 01:14:41.690
Hello again, I'm Dr. Andrea Chevalier with edTPA,
01:14:41.690 --> 01:14:46.080
and we have been listening for the past three years
01:14:46.080 --> 01:14:49.560
in the edTPA discussions and have enjoyed engaging
01:14:49.560 --> 01:14:52.490
in conversations with various stakeholders.
01:14:52.490 --> 01:14:55.453
We've also had the opportunity to review research
01:14:55.453 --> 01:14:59.600
that has related to edTPA.
01:14:59.600 --> 01:15:03.090
And recently we have had the opportunity
01:15:03.090 --> 01:15:05.280
to listen to candidate experiences
01:15:05.280 --> 01:15:06.870
who've gone through the pilot.
01:15:06.870 --> 01:15:09.370
And I think that that is something that has been a little
01:15:09.370 --> 01:15:11.920
bit missing from all of these conversations
01:15:11.920 --> 01:15:13.970
is that we haven't heard too much from the people
01:15:13.970 --> 01:15:15.567
who've gone through this.
01:15:15.567 --> 01:15:20.567
So I believe that someone who did go through the pilot,
01:15:20.750 --> 01:15:23.410
her name is Mary L. King, she submitted written testimony.
01:15:23.410 --> 01:15:25.330
So I hope that you take the time to read that
01:15:25.330 --> 01:15:26.743
and her experiences.
01:15:27.870 --> 01:15:30.956
First of all, the peer reviewed research on edTPA
01:15:30.956 --> 01:15:35.956
suggests that it has more negative effects on candidates
01:15:35.970 --> 01:15:37.490
than it does positive.
01:15:37.490 --> 01:15:39.270
And so from the candidate perspective,
01:15:39.270 --> 01:15:41.480
that includes things like the cost burden,
01:15:41.480 --> 01:15:43.650
the cost of the test,
01:15:43.650 --> 01:15:46.790
the time commitment that it takes to complete it
01:15:46.790 --> 01:15:48.700
and technology and other requirements
01:15:48.700 --> 01:15:51.563
such as gaining student media releases.
01:15:52.560 --> 01:15:55.300
In order to submit the edTPA video submission.
01:15:55.300 --> 01:15:59.130
And those burdens often spill over onto the district
01:15:59.130 --> 01:16:01.050
side as well.
01:16:01.050 --> 01:16:04.020
The research also suggests that it's an inauthentic
01:16:04.020 --> 01:16:07.420
assessment, and so Mariel's testimony explains
01:16:07.420 --> 01:16:12.420
how she received no points for particular part of the rubric
01:16:13.400 --> 01:16:14.840
that dealt with special populations,
01:16:14.840 --> 01:16:16.430
because she wasn't given those students
01:16:16.430 --> 01:16:18.540
since she was a novice teacher.
01:16:18.540 --> 01:16:22.380
She also had a lesson that didn't quite fit
01:16:22.380 --> 01:16:24.480
with what the rubric needed to see.
01:16:24.480 --> 01:16:26.060
And so she missed points on that.
01:16:26.060 --> 01:16:29.000
And this is someone who was rated very highly
01:16:29.000 --> 01:16:31.840
on their evaluation from their principal
01:16:31.840 --> 01:16:33.640
on their T-TESS evaluation,
01:16:33.640 --> 01:16:35.450
but yet failed at edTPA.
01:16:35.450 --> 01:16:40.450
So moving forward, we do support the proposal to implement
01:16:41.140 --> 01:16:43.670
a locally scored performance assessment
01:16:43.670 --> 01:16:47.623
and potentially modify the PPR as well, thank you.
01:16:50.090 --> 01:16:52.320
Dr. Tim Miller, Raise Your Hand
01:16:52.320 --> 01:16:56.020
Texas Foundation, on deck as Theresa Hinohos
01:16:56.020 --> 01:16:56.943
and Carrie Grant.
01:16:58.220 --> 01:16:59.990
Good afternoon y'all, Tim Miller,
01:16:59.990 --> 01:17:02.430
Superintendent Residents at Regina and Texas.
01:17:02.430 --> 01:17:05.850
We currently work with over two dozen university-based
01:17:05.850 --> 01:17:09.289
preparation programs and they represent 63% of the teacher
01:17:09.289 --> 01:17:12.507
candidates are produced by the University of Route
01:17:12.507 --> 01:17:14.190
and the State of Texas.
01:17:14.190 --> 01:17:17.230
We work with them on a framework that's based
01:17:17.230 --> 01:17:20.045
on four pillars of continuous improvement partnerships
01:17:20.045 --> 01:17:23.740
with school districts, rigorous clinical preparation,
01:17:23.740 --> 01:17:27.000
and probably most importantly performance based progression.
01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:29.380
So the programs that we're working with,
01:17:29.380 --> 01:17:32.000
many of them are already using a performance-based
01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:35.060
assessment before they're a teacher candidates
01:17:35.060 --> 01:17:36.440
either get into clinical teaching,
01:17:36.440 --> 01:17:39.065
or certainly before they get their standard certificate.
01:17:39.065 --> 01:17:41.170
This morning with Commissioner Merav.
01:17:41.170 --> 01:17:44.230
He did a fantastic job of outlining this,
01:17:44.230 --> 01:17:46.320
the current state of where we're at in the State of Texas
01:17:46.320 --> 01:17:50.026
in the need for a better preparation.
01:17:50.026 --> 01:17:53.770
I think I'm gonna highlight in my written testimony,
01:17:53.770 --> 01:17:57.463
I gave you a copy of a slide that he shared this morning.
01:17:58.870 --> 01:18:02.020
Better preparation is very much an equity issue right now.
01:18:02.020 --> 01:18:03.810
When you look at that slide,
01:18:03.810 --> 01:18:08.810
almost it it's an overwhelming a number of students of color
01:18:09.350 --> 01:18:11.750
and students who are identified as economically
01:18:11.750 --> 01:18:15.110
disadvantaged are being taught by what is considered
01:18:15.110 --> 01:18:15.943
as beginning teachers.
01:18:15.943 --> 01:18:17.220
But they're actually, pre-service teachers,
01:18:17.220 --> 01:18:19.902
people that are going through an ACP program.
01:18:19.902 --> 01:18:22.220
So we are in favor of the recommendation to place
01:18:22.220 --> 01:18:24.980
a performance-based assessment before a person could become
01:18:24.980 --> 01:18:27.720
a teacher of record, so that at the very minimum,
01:18:27.720 --> 01:18:31.260
they show those developing and mastery
01:18:31.260 --> 01:18:32.760
of those proficiencies.
01:18:32.760 --> 01:18:35.230
And you already have a model for this and your rules.
01:18:35.230 --> 01:18:38.740
Two years ago, you developed an intensive pre-service model
01:18:38.740 --> 01:18:42.190
that instead of just 30 hours, you require 150 hours,
01:18:42.190 --> 01:18:44.310
which is much less than the 500 plus hours
01:18:44.310 --> 01:18:46.380
that a university-based teacher gets.
01:18:46.380 --> 01:18:49.300
But 150 hours with a performance-based assessment
01:18:49.300 --> 01:18:51.010
is much better than what we have right now.
01:18:51.010 --> 01:18:52.360
So thank you all very much,
01:18:53.202 --> 01:18:55.073
and if you have any questions, contact me.
01:18:57.920 --> 01:19:01.310
Theresa Hinohos, ESC 19,
01:19:01.310 --> 01:19:04.443
on deck is Carrie Griffith and Perry Crafton.
01:19:10.460 --> 01:19:13.010
Hello, again, I'm representing ESC region 19s
01:19:13.010 --> 01:19:14.510
alternative certification program.
01:19:14.510 --> 01:19:16.800
We participated in the year two edTPA pilot,
01:19:16.800 --> 01:19:20.390
and we were skeptical at first, but now glad that we did it,
01:19:20.390 --> 01:19:22.670
we had nine of 11 candidates submit their portfolios
01:19:22.670 --> 01:19:24.160
over a period of 12 months.
01:19:24.160 --> 01:19:26.430
And it was challenging for us as well as for our candidates
01:19:26.430 --> 01:19:28.960
in year one, as a result of our participation,
01:19:28.960 --> 01:19:31.920
we did find deficiencies in our candidate preparation
01:19:31.920 --> 01:19:34.200
and made adjustments to our curriculum.
01:19:34.200 --> 01:19:36.400
This year, we've already had eight of 10 candidates
01:19:36.400 --> 01:19:39.040
submit their portfolios over a period of four months.
01:19:39.040 --> 01:19:40.730
Our candidates had a much better understanding
01:19:40.730 --> 01:19:42.350
of the requirements, and we saw our candidates
01:19:42.350 --> 01:19:43.710
be more reflective in their teaching,
01:19:43.710 --> 01:19:46.490
even after they were done with their edTPA portfolio,
01:19:46.490 --> 01:19:48.320
as we've been receiving scores, we've also noticed
01:19:48.320 --> 01:19:50.290
an increase in rubrics, especially in test three,
01:19:50.290 --> 01:19:52.110
which was our lowest, last year.
01:19:52.110 --> 01:19:54.810
We've seen that edTPA strengthened our candidates teaching
01:19:54.810 --> 01:19:57.430
and it improved our program with the data and feedback.
01:19:57.430 --> 01:19:59.760
We see edTPA is a much better tool to measure candidates
01:19:59.760 --> 01:20:02.240
readiness, to be in the classroom in comparison to PPR,
01:20:02.240 --> 01:20:05.100
which is more memorization and they'll pass over 90%
01:20:05.100 --> 01:20:08.240
of our candidates are Hispanic and struggle with PPR.
01:20:08.240 --> 01:20:10.870
EdTPA involves more than just memorization.
01:20:10.870 --> 01:20:12.666
One of the issues we foresee is cost.
01:20:12.666 --> 01:20:16.000
It is more than double the current cost of PPR
01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:18.870
and the majority of our candidates choose to do internships
01:20:18.870 --> 01:20:20.430
for financial reasons.
01:20:20.430 --> 01:20:21.820
We all know that new teachers struggle
01:20:21.820 --> 01:20:23.170
juggling their duties.
01:20:23.170 --> 01:20:25.140
And especially now with the learning gaps
01:20:25.140 --> 01:20:28.430
and reading academies, they're more stressed than ever.
01:20:28.430 --> 01:20:30.980
So completing edTPA, their first year teaching
01:20:30.980 --> 01:20:33.010
may cause additional struggle.
01:20:33.010 --> 01:20:34.950
We currently have one large district in our region
01:20:34.950 --> 01:20:36.340
that is no longer hiring candidates
01:20:36.340 --> 01:20:38.637
until they are fully certified.
01:20:38.637 --> 01:20:40.030
EdTPA can only be completed if you're completing a clinical
01:20:40.030 --> 01:20:43.150
or internship, unlike PPR, which can be taken at any time.
01:20:43.150 --> 01:20:44.890
If more districts start adopting the same thinking,
01:20:44.890 --> 01:20:47.020
then our candidates will face challenges of getting hired
01:20:47.020 --> 01:20:49.600
and ultimately not being able to get certified,
01:20:49.600 --> 01:20:52.010
and uncomment to some of the previous testimony.
01:20:52.010 --> 01:20:54.100
We currently have two facilitators and this year
01:20:54.100 --> 01:20:55.220
we have 70 candidates.
01:20:55.220 --> 01:20:57.990
So an internally scored assessment would not be feasible
01:20:57.990 --> 01:20:59.747
for us, thank you.
01:21:03.350 --> 01:21:07.016
Carrie Grifith, Texas State Teachers Association
01:21:07.016 --> 01:21:11.870
on deck Perry Crafton and Roxanne Schroeder Arse.
01:21:11.870 --> 01:21:14.060
Hello for the fourth and final time.
01:21:14.060 --> 01:21:16.936
Thank you guys for hanging in there with us today.
01:21:16.936 --> 01:21:19.850
My name is Carrie Griffith, Policy Specialist for the Texas
01:21:19.850 --> 01:21:21.300
State Teachers Association.
01:21:21.300 --> 01:21:24.413
And I'm testifying on behalf of our 65,000 members today
01:21:24.413 --> 01:21:29.413
in opposition to adoption of the edTPA as a certification
01:21:30.050 --> 01:21:33.530
exam, to be clear, we support the use of performance
01:21:33.530 --> 01:21:35.970
assessments and quality quality coaching cycles
01:21:35.970 --> 01:21:40.110
in teacher training, but we feel it's a misapplication
01:21:40.110 --> 01:21:42.773
of the tool, if used as a certification exam.
01:21:44.940 --> 01:21:46.940
Our fundamental opposition is twofold.
01:21:46.940 --> 01:21:49.937
Number one, it's not a valid or reliable instrument,
01:21:49.937 --> 01:21:53.640
the edTPA and number two, the style of assessment,
01:21:53.640 --> 01:21:56.270
the performance assessment is not intended for use
01:21:56.270 --> 01:21:58.223
as a high stakes classification tool.
01:21:59.090 --> 01:22:03.327
So in terms of fifth grade skill set,
01:22:03.327 --> 01:22:05.680
I was a fifth grade math and science teacher
01:22:05.680 --> 01:22:08.955
and something that my students were expected to know
01:22:08.955 --> 01:22:12.400
was the basics of sound instrument use.
01:22:12.400 --> 01:22:15.950
So my 10 and 11 year olds were expected to understand
01:22:15.950 --> 01:22:18.853
the principles of measurement accuracy.
01:22:19.753 --> 01:22:22.500
This is only possible with the correctly calibrated
01:22:22.500 --> 01:22:26.670
instrument, so if a yard stick is not exactly 36 inches,
01:22:26.670 --> 01:22:28.070
it's not a yardstick.
01:22:28.070 --> 01:22:30.640
And number two meaningful data can only be gathered
01:22:30.640 --> 01:22:33.930
if the appropriate tool is used for the appropriate reason.
01:22:33.930 --> 01:22:36.630
So we don't measure a butterfly wings with yardsticks.
01:22:38.216 --> 01:22:41.150
So neither of these points subsumed that there's no value
01:22:41.150 --> 01:22:42.459
in a yard stick, there's no value.
01:22:42.459 --> 01:22:44.660
There's certainly value in performance assessment.
01:22:44.660 --> 01:22:46.440
It's just being used in the wrong way,
01:22:46.440 --> 01:22:48.543
according to this proposal.
01:22:52.250 --> 01:22:57.190
So in my written testimony, I support the with citations,
01:22:57.190 --> 01:23:00.230
the sort of the instrument being not valid or reliable.
01:23:00.230 --> 01:23:02.400
So I'm just going to speak really quickly to the second
01:23:02.400 --> 01:23:05.749
point that the use of a performance assessment
01:23:05.749 --> 01:23:08.080
shouldn't be used to classify.
01:23:08.080 --> 01:23:09.420
It's not a sorting mechanism.
01:23:09.420 --> 01:23:12.545
It's a measure, there's great utility for teachers
01:23:12.545 --> 01:23:16.190
to use it as a tool for growth, it's designed to have sort
01:23:16.190 --> 01:23:19.873
of a coaching cycle feedback, so thank you.
01:23:23.290 --> 01:23:25.433
Final call for Perry Crafton,
01:23:28.150 --> 01:23:32.530
Roxanne Schroeder Arse, UT Austin College of Fine Arts
01:23:32.530 --> 01:23:36.553
on deck, Dr. Don Steinbrecher and Holly Eaton.
01:23:39.470 --> 01:23:42.070
Hello, Roxanne Schroeder Arse.
01:23:42.070 --> 01:23:45.074
I'm the Associate Dean of UT Fine Arts Education
01:23:45.074 --> 01:23:47.311
at the University of Texas at Austin.
01:23:47.311 --> 01:23:51.480
And I'm also a certified teacher in the state.
01:23:51.480 --> 01:23:55.480
I taught a high school in Laredo and also in Austin
01:23:55.480 --> 01:23:56.593
for several years.
01:23:57.600 --> 01:24:01.390
I'm talking today about some concerns about edTPA
01:24:01.390 --> 01:24:03.550
that are specific to Texas fine arts
01:24:03.550 --> 01:24:05.180
education teacher candidates.
01:24:05.180 --> 01:24:08.580
And I do encourage you to consider some of the alternatives
01:24:08.580 --> 01:24:11.670
that were presented today that I think are much better
01:24:11.670 --> 01:24:15.230
alternatives and I consider, I hope you'll consider
01:24:16.110 --> 01:24:17.640
continuing to think about it.
01:24:17.640 --> 01:24:21.330
First, edTPA is essentially an inexpensive,
01:24:21.330 --> 01:24:23.320
video review assessment.
01:24:23.320 --> 01:24:26.500
Of course our field supervisors are not allowed to use
01:24:26.500 --> 01:24:30.890
videos for review because watching a video of a teacher does
01:24:30.890 --> 01:24:34.860
not enable a reviewer to fully make an assessment
01:24:34.860 --> 01:24:37.010
of what is happening in the room,
01:24:37.010 --> 01:24:39.660
particularly and fine arts education
01:24:39.660 --> 01:24:43.840
videos are an inacceptable method of evaluation in fine arts
01:24:44.950 --> 01:24:48.930
teachers encourage interaction and engagement as outlined
01:24:48.930 --> 01:24:53.330
in the teaks, the fine arts quote, engage and motivate
01:24:53.330 --> 01:24:56.130
all students through active learning, critical thinking
01:24:56.130 --> 01:24:59.730
and innovative problem solving, creativity is essential,
01:24:59.730 --> 01:25:01.430
and the study of fine arts nurtures
01:25:01.430 --> 01:25:04.250
and develops the whole child, unquote,
01:25:04.250 --> 01:25:08.178
our programs prepare teachers who facilitate and encourage
01:25:08.178 --> 01:25:13.178
collaboration among students capturing a dynamic teacher,
01:25:13.370 --> 01:25:15.240
moving around the room,
01:25:15.240 --> 01:25:18.329
engaging with individuals and groups of students
01:25:18.329 --> 01:25:22.550
can not be accomplished in a single camera video.
01:25:22.550 --> 01:25:25.460
And these candidates are distracted
01:25:25.460 --> 01:25:27.800
by trying to make that happen.
01:25:27.800 --> 01:25:32.700
Second, edTPA is expensive for pre-service teachers
01:25:32.700 --> 01:25:35.240
and for educator preparation programs,
01:25:35.240 --> 01:25:38.030
as we bring more candidates of color
01:25:38.030 --> 01:25:41.660
who are first-generation college students sometimes also,
01:25:41.660 --> 01:25:44.383
and also from lower, thank you.
01:25:48.100 --> 01:25:52.410
Dr. Don Steinbrecher, UT Fine Arts,
01:25:52.410 --> 01:25:55.253
on deck Holly Eaton and Susan Sharp.
01:26:00.610 --> 01:26:02.580
Good afternoon, I'm Don Steinbrecher,
01:26:02.580 --> 01:26:06.178
I'm a 20 year educator, I spent 10 years in title one
01:26:06.178 --> 01:26:09.410
schools in Texas,
01:26:09.410 --> 01:26:13.080
and I'm currently working with 17 university students
01:26:13.080 --> 01:26:15.050
who are eager to become teachers.
01:26:15.050 --> 01:26:17.700
My department introduces digital portfolios,
01:26:17.700 --> 01:26:20.910
and you're seeing some screen caps of those going around
01:26:20.910 --> 01:26:23.450
as a way for students to demonstrate and reflect on their
01:26:23.450 --> 01:26:27.350
understanding of teaching and learning.
01:26:27.350 --> 01:26:28.183
For many years,
01:26:28.183 --> 01:26:30.600
I used in test standards with these portfolios,
01:26:30.600 --> 01:26:32.120
but two years ago,
01:26:32.120 --> 01:26:34.623
I switched to the Texas teacher standards.
01:26:35.810 --> 01:26:38.820
Recognizing that these standards provide a smooth transition
01:26:38.820 --> 01:26:43.240
to the T-TESS appraisal system seemed like an obvious
01:26:43.240 --> 01:26:44.520
pathway to go.
01:26:44.520 --> 01:26:46.303
So you'll see some examples.
01:26:47.690 --> 01:26:52.537
One of the things I'd hoped to do was to include the ELPs
01:26:53.940 --> 01:26:55.430
and the SD standards,
01:26:55.430 --> 01:26:58.533
which are part of the Texas teacher preparation standards,
01:26:59.900 --> 01:27:02.240
but it appears that other written rationales
01:27:02.240 --> 01:27:05.580
and competencies could become a priority
01:27:05.580 --> 01:27:08.600
with the implementation of edTPA.
01:27:08.600 --> 01:27:11.424
As I think about my students going into student teaching
01:27:11.424 --> 01:27:16.385
in January of 17 student six, do not have a car.
01:27:16.385 --> 01:27:18.920
The majority have part-time jobs.
01:27:18.920 --> 01:27:21.240
A growing number are first gen college students
01:27:21.240 --> 01:27:24.240
and underrepresented in the teaching field.
01:27:24.240 --> 01:27:28.930
Recently, several opted not to complete their degree
01:27:28.930 --> 01:27:32.440
without certification explicitly stating that they could
01:27:32.440 --> 01:27:36.193
not afford to continue including two Spanish speakers.
01:27:37.150 --> 01:27:40.930
So requiring edTPA as a high stakes costly
01:27:40.930 --> 01:27:44.030
and extraneous hurdle is concerning.
01:27:44.030 --> 01:27:46.470
I present this work as an example of an approach
01:27:46.470 --> 01:27:49.549
and did not know about the other portfolio party
01:27:49.549 --> 01:27:53.480
that is aligned with state standards rather than the common
01:27:53.480 --> 01:27:57.481
core, and as a caught a bottle that is not cost prohibitive.
01:27:57.481 --> 01:27:59.890
Furthermore, it can be a living document
01:27:59.890 --> 01:28:01.610
rather than an obstacle.
01:28:01.610 --> 01:28:03.950
So you'll see a certain certificate
01:28:05.200 --> 01:28:08.123
and it can be used for interviews, will help us consider.
01:28:11.890 --> 01:28:14.280
Holly Eaton, Texas Classroom
01:28:14.280 --> 01:28:19.123
Teacher's Association, on deck Susan Sharp and James Durham.
01:28:24.090 --> 01:28:27.500
Mr. Chairman members, next is Classroom Teachers
01:28:27.500 --> 01:28:31.330
Association for this opportunity to testify.
01:28:31.330 --> 01:28:34.290
We joined a broad array of stakeholders to express our
01:28:34.290 --> 01:28:37.670
concerns about moving forward with adopting the edTPA
01:28:37.670 --> 01:28:41.100
as a performance assessment for teacher licensure.
01:28:41.100 --> 01:28:44.700
In this moment, the teaching profession is at a point
01:28:44.700 --> 01:28:47.570
we have fewer candidates pursuing the profession
01:28:47.570 --> 01:28:51.168
while we have a demoralized and exhausted teacher corps
01:28:51.168 --> 01:28:54.113
who were looking for a way out of the profession.
01:28:55.020 --> 01:28:57.410
The profession has struggled for a long time to be
01:28:57.410 --> 01:28:58.270
an attractive one.
01:28:58.270 --> 01:29:00.960
And even before the pandemic,
01:29:00.960 --> 01:29:03.320
fewer college students were choosing it.
01:29:03.320 --> 01:29:06.420
It is unwise to operate in a vacuum when making
01:29:06.420 --> 01:29:08.930
this decision without considering other constraints
01:29:08.930 --> 01:29:11.860
on the profession, putting up an expensive barrier
01:29:11.860 --> 01:29:14.620
to a profession that's extremely fragile at this point
01:29:14.620 --> 01:29:17.150
in time, without meaningfully addressing ways
01:29:17.150 --> 01:29:21.160
to make it more attractive overall could prove disastrous.
01:29:21.160 --> 01:29:23.670
There is really no debate that the better candidate
01:29:23.670 --> 01:29:26.900
is prepared when pursuing certification the more successful
01:29:26.900 --> 01:29:29.097
they tend to be when they get into the profession.
01:29:29.097 --> 01:29:31.380
But as with most complex issues,
01:29:31.380 --> 01:29:34.130
there are more questions than answers about the specific
01:29:34.130 --> 01:29:38.130
means of accomplishing that DCTA has consistently supported
01:29:38.130 --> 01:29:39.800
high standards the profession,
01:29:39.800 --> 01:29:43.290
but it's become increasingly clear that when we have a laser
01:29:43.290 --> 01:29:44.860
focus on teacher certification,
01:29:44.860 --> 01:29:47.780
without considering that as a state we've allowed for more
01:29:47.780 --> 01:29:49.940
and more pathways into the profession,
01:29:49.940 --> 01:29:51.983
including some not requiring certification
01:29:51.983 --> 01:29:54.555
and others requiring less rigorous training,
01:29:54.555 --> 01:29:57.260
we are sending a very mixed message.
01:29:57.260 --> 01:29:59.930
Certainly the proposal to proceed with the edTPA
01:29:59.930 --> 01:30:02.750
as a certification exam is viewed by some as the way
01:30:02.750 --> 01:30:05.300
to ensure teacher candidates are better prepared
01:30:05.300 --> 01:30:06.510
for the classroom.
01:30:06.510 --> 01:30:09.580
However, nor mind with all the unknowns and concerns
01:30:09.580 --> 01:30:11.530
surrounding it, the question is,
01:30:11.530 --> 01:30:14.273
is there a verifiable urgency such that this step
01:30:14.273 --> 01:30:16.070
must be taken now?
01:30:16.070 --> 01:30:18.970
And do we know that the end justifies the means?
01:30:18.970 --> 01:30:21.890
Are there other approaches that would provide a less abrupt
01:30:21.890 --> 01:30:24.730
and costly way of better preparing teacher candidates
01:30:24.730 --> 01:30:26.363
for success in the classroom?
01:30:27.230 --> 01:30:29.720
These are all questions we would urge the Board to carefully
01:30:29.720 --> 01:30:33.410
consider before moving forward with adopting edTPA
01:30:33.410 --> 01:30:36.068
as a performance assessment for licensure.
01:30:36.068 --> 01:30:36.901
Thank you for your time.
01:30:38.750 --> 01:30:42.380
Susan Sharp, Texas Association of Certification
01:30:42.380 --> 01:30:44.730
Officers, followed by James Durham
01:30:44.730 --> 01:30:46.283
and Professor Brenda Miller.
01:30:48.310 --> 01:30:50.640
Good afternoon, thanks so much for letting me
01:30:50.640 --> 01:30:51.990
visit with you.
01:30:51.990 --> 01:30:56.080
I'm Susan Sharp, current President of the Texas Association
01:30:56.080 --> 01:30:59.760
of Certification Officers, better known as TACO.
01:30:59.760 --> 01:31:02.300
So you can remember us that way.
01:31:02.300 --> 01:31:05.444
I'm a 35 year retired,
01:31:05.444 --> 01:31:10.165
Texas educator and administrator,
01:31:10.165 --> 01:31:13.993
and came back into my second life in higher ed.
01:31:15.100 --> 01:31:19.725
I am presenting the results of the survey that we have taken
01:31:19.725 --> 01:31:23.400
after our CSO meeting in the fall.
01:31:23.400 --> 01:31:26.530
It consisted of four questions.
01:31:26.530 --> 01:31:30.940
The first two questions related to our association
01:31:30.940 --> 01:31:34.483
membership, as well as our collegian affiliations,
01:31:36.330 --> 01:31:41.200
the responses were collected from organizations with vested
01:31:41.200 --> 01:31:44.993
interest in educator preparation and certification.
01:31:46.250 --> 01:31:51.250
Question number three, I recommend this pedagogy assessment
01:31:51.270 --> 01:31:52.603
option to SBEC.
01:31:55.100 --> 01:32:00.100
Response number one, more than one pedagogy association,
01:32:00.350 --> 01:32:05.350
33.82%, number two, enhanced PPR with constructed response
01:32:08.410 --> 01:32:13.410
questions, 19.81%, number three, pedagogy and professional
01:32:15.030 --> 01:32:20.030
responsibilities, 19.32% and TPA, 15.46%,
01:32:23.560 --> 01:32:27.563
and a T-TESS based portfolio assessment, 11.59%
01:32:29.120 --> 01:32:31.773
for a total of 207 responses.
01:32:33.180 --> 01:32:34.920
Question number four,
01:32:34.920 --> 01:32:38.710
if you recommend more than one pedagogy assessment,
01:32:38.710 --> 01:32:41.210
which ones do you recommend?
01:32:41.210 --> 01:32:46.175
Enhanced PPR with constructed response, 31.58%,
01:32:46.175 --> 01:32:50.300
T-TESS base portfolio assessment, 30.7%.
01:32:51.478 --> 01:32:55.457
Pedagogian PPR 24.56%, edTPA 10.96%.
01:32:59.460 --> 01:33:02.703
And another 2.19, thank you.
01:33:05.660 --> 01:33:08.340
James Durham, Texas Tech University
01:33:08.340 --> 01:33:12.280
Teacher Education followed by Professor Brenda Miller
01:33:12.280 --> 01:33:14.160
and Dr. Gwendolyn Poloski.
01:33:16.490 --> 01:33:19.880
I brought you in at work with me and it's more than look
01:33:19.880 --> 01:33:21.280
at it, I'll have it up here.
01:33:22.510 --> 01:33:23.490
As an educator, I think it's important,
01:33:23.490 --> 01:33:25.650
we've got a bunch of educators in the room.
01:33:25.650 --> 01:33:29.243
So I'm James Durham, Texas Tech University.
01:33:29.243 --> 01:33:30.810
Teacher Education Program.
01:33:30.810 --> 01:33:35.280
The fall semester, I integrated edTPA planning task one
01:33:35.280 --> 01:33:39.030
into my classroom, for a middle school
01:33:39.030 --> 01:33:42.770
and secondary pre-service teachers.
01:33:42.770 --> 01:33:44.640
The teacher education program at Texas Tech
01:33:44.640 --> 01:33:46.743
is an edTPA pilot program.
01:33:47.730 --> 01:33:50.050
The difficulties we faced with the initial implementation
01:33:50.050 --> 01:33:52.170
of edTPA with students in my class centered mostly
01:33:52.170 --> 01:33:54.330
around handbook vocabulary.
01:33:54.330 --> 01:33:56.840
Please understand these are very micro level difficulties
01:33:56.840 --> 01:33:59.260
that must be addressed in block one with students
01:33:59.260 --> 01:34:01.560
who are initially introduced to education,
01:34:01.560 --> 01:34:02.923
ease in the state of Texas.
01:34:04.450 --> 01:34:09.030
Examples include the ADPA definition of the word standards.
01:34:09.030 --> 01:34:12.240
In some cases, students believe standards meant teaks.
01:34:12.240 --> 01:34:15.080
Other times it appeared that it was a general reporting
01:34:15.080 --> 01:34:17.270
category, and then in another case,
01:34:17.270 --> 01:34:20.210
we even referenced it as a lesson objective.
01:34:20.210 --> 01:34:23.366
So interestingly, all of the students were correct
01:34:23.366 --> 01:34:25.620
when they started thinking about this.
01:34:25.620 --> 01:34:28.210
So we have to get an understanding of what standards
01:34:28.210 --> 01:34:29.740
are in the edTPA.
01:34:29.740 --> 01:34:32.210
We also ran into difficulties with the term language
01:34:32.210 --> 01:34:35.360
function, we finally agreed to define that
01:34:35.360 --> 01:34:38.191
as an operational verb in the teaks.
01:34:38.191 --> 01:34:39.410
And so once we got that down,
01:34:39.410 --> 01:34:41.700
things started to flow a little more smoothly.
01:34:41.700 --> 01:34:43.830
On the positive side, and the reason I'm here to support
01:34:43.830 --> 01:34:46.610
edTPA, according to my students,
01:34:46.610 --> 01:34:48.723
during their portfolio defense finals,
01:34:48.723 --> 01:34:51.393
and that's the portfolio they had to defend,
01:34:53.077 --> 01:34:56.620
they felt that the, what do you need to right portion
01:34:56.620 --> 01:34:58.980
of the edTPA handbook placed them in a situation
01:34:58.980 --> 01:35:01.310
in which they really had to consider creative strategies
01:35:01.310 --> 01:35:03.993
for differentiating for diverse learners.
01:35:05.300 --> 01:35:08.170
The pre-service teachers in my class also thought the series
01:35:08.170 --> 01:35:10.450
of questions introduced by the planning task one,
01:35:10.450 --> 01:35:12.150
made them have to have a more specific
01:35:12.150 --> 01:35:15.360
and more deliberate lesson planning process.
01:35:15.360 --> 01:35:18.190
And I agree with their assessment having taught this class
01:35:18.190 --> 01:35:22.040
for years, the addition of edTPA planning task one improved
01:35:22.040 --> 01:35:23.620
student performance in my class,
01:35:23.620 --> 01:35:26.120
and increase student confidence in their ability to create
01:35:26.120 --> 01:35:28.450
lessons for diverse student populations.
01:35:28.450 --> 01:35:31.033
For these reasons I support implementing edTPA.
01:35:34.640 --> 01:35:36.150
Professor Brenda Miller,
01:35:36.150 --> 01:35:38.380
Arlington Baptist university followed
01:35:38.380 --> 01:35:41.273
by Dr. Gwendolyn Poloski and Leslie Cooper.
01:35:43.680 --> 01:35:47.410
I'm Brenda Miller, Chair of the School of Education
01:35:47.410 --> 01:35:51.913
at Arlington Baptist University, ABU, we're piloting edTPA.
01:35:53.900 --> 01:35:57.760
Midway through our first year of piloting, ABU views edTPA
01:35:57.760 --> 01:36:00.860
as a partner in our endeavor to produce world changing
01:36:00.860 --> 01:36:03.810
teachers, our program, which is already strong
01:36:03.810 --> 01:36:05.957
is the better for having piloted edTPA.
01:36:05.957 --> 01:36:09.780
And our teacher candidates say edTPA is worth the work.
01:36:09.780 --> 01:36:12.800
Perhaps the most meaningful benefit for our candidates
01:36:12.800 --> 01:36:15.090
is understanding the culture of the school,
01:36:15.090 --> 01:36:17.820
community classes and the assets each learner
01:36:17.820 --> 01:36:20.120
brings to the classroom requiring
01:36:20.120 --> 01:36:24.218
differentiation and uniqueness for a defined group
01:36:24.218 --> 01:36:28.310
of students to be embraced contemplated and specifically
01:36:28.310 --> 01:36:31.380
planned for is perhaps the most difficult element
01:36:31.380 --> 01:36:33.857
to replicate in any educational setting,
01:36:33.857 --> 01:36:35.940
planning, instructing, reflecting,
01:36:35.940 --> 01:36:39.220
and reteaching based on the decisions candidates make during
01:36:39.220 --> 01:36:42.930
actual classroom teaching is when real life in theory
01:36:42.930 --> 01:36:46.320
intersect, a competence is gained that even field based
01:36:46.320 --> 01:36:49.190
experience and peer teaching cannot fully replicate.
01:36:49.190 --> 01:36:52.366
Additionally edTPA's rubrics reposition monitoring
01:36:52.366 --> 01:36:57.150
of learning outcomes, handing them over to candidates
01:36:57.150 --> 01:37:00.140
themselves as they actively engage in metacognition
01:37:00.140 --> 01:37:02.901
to internalize the proficiencies beginning teachers
01:37:02.901 --> 01:37:06.180
should display, candidates are not only learning
01:37:06.180 --> 01:37:09.340
scrupulous self-assessment, but they're also experiencing
01:37:09.340 --> 01:37:11.040
what learning outcomes should look like,
01:37:11.040 --> 01:37:14.150
how to plan effectively to achieve them and how to respond
01:37:14.150 --> 01:37:17.040
when they fall short of accomplishing them.
01:37:17.040 --> 01:37:20.100
Though, our EPP has had to make no curriculum changes,
01:37:20.100 --> 01:37:22.530
embarking on this journey has challenged professors
01:37:22.530 --> 01:37:25.850
to rethink how we engage in the same cycle of effective
01:37:25.850 --> 01:37:27.920
teaching we present to our candidates
01:37:27.920 --> 01:37:30.490
with a new rigor that energizes the curriculum
01:37:30.490 --> 01:37:32.710
and models best practices,
01:37:32.710 --> 01:37:34.940
even candidates hurdling the demands presented
01:37:34.940 --> 01:37:37.070
from certain academic language has resulted
01:37:37.070 --> 01:37:40.000
in their mastering terminology that was once I'm familiar
01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:42.860
and there's a bonus benefit, candidates experienced
01:37:42.860 --> 01:37:46.091
firsthand how important it is to plan to support learners,
01:37:46.091 --> 01:37:49.890
especially when learners must comprehend academic language.
01:37:49.890 --> 01:37:51.063
Thank you so much.
01:37:53.150 --> 01:37:58.150
Dr. Gwendolyn Polaski, Houston ISD, Teach Plus Texas,
01:37:58.750 --> 01:38:02.763
followed by Leslie Cooper and Dr. Carl Shapiros.
01:38:03.760 --> 01:38:05.350
Hello, I know it is very late.
01:38:05.350 --> 01:38:08.680
I'm Gwen Polaski, and I appreciate your time.
01:38:08.680 --> 01:38:11.440
I am an English teacher at East Early College High School
01:38:11.440 --> 01:38:13.049
in Houston ISD.
01:38:13.049 --> 01:38:16.240
I'm in my 17th year as a classroom teacher,
01:38:16.240 --> 01:38:19.210
I've also served as a campus-based in district level mentor
01:38:19.210 --> 01:38:20.210
of new teachers.
01:38:20.210 --> 01:38:22.750
I've served as an administrator responsible for appraising
01:38:22.750 --> 01:38:24.540
and developing new teachers.
01:38:24.540 --> 01:38:26.300
And based on my experience,
01:38:26.300 --> 01:38:29.682
mentoring appraising and training new teachers in the field,
01:38:29.682 --> 01:38:33.893
I encourage the Board to phase in the edTPA portfolio
01:38:33.893 --> 01:38:38.460
assessment to replace our current PPR certification exam,
01:38:38.460 --> 01:38:40.540
as is often true in my classroom.
01:38:40.540 --> 01:38:44.100
I have revised and revise and revise my lesson plan.
01:38:44.100 --> 01:38:45.946
And I'm just going to throw it out,
01:38:45.946 --> 01:38:49.770
and start a new I've listened to all of the testimony.
01:38:49.770 --> 01:38:54.160
I just wanted to point out that I heard that portfolio
01:38:54.160 --> 01:38:58.202
assessment performance assessment is essential,
01:38:58.202 --> 01:39:03.202
and we heard Commissioner Morav's analogy to the doctor.
01:39:03.370 --> 01:39:06.426
We heard that it is essential as formative assessment,
01:39:06.426 --> 01:39:10.940
and yet we also heard warning as a summit of assessment,
01:39:10.940 --> 01:39:13.120
somehow it is problematic.
01:39:13.120 --> 01:39:15.950
Let's remember that we are talking about replacing
01:39:15.950 --> 01:39:18.890
the multiple choice tests that we take.
01:39:18.890 --> 01:39:22.830
We all know does not reflect in any way,
01:39:22.830 --> 01:39:24.980
the reality of the classroom.
01:39:24.980 --> 01:39:26.700
That's what we're talking about.
01:39:26.700 --> 01:39:29.420
It makes sense to pair formative assessment
01:39:29.420 --> 01:39:33.510
that is performative assessment with a summit of assessment
01:39:33.510 --> 01:39:35.800
that is also performance assessment.
01:39:35.800 --> 01:39:38.027
So I do recommend that the phase,
01:39:38.027 --> 01:39:39.310
a phase phasing of edTPA,
01:39:39.310 --> 01:39:42.770
along with all these wonderful ideas for improving
01:39:42.770 --> 01:39:45.830
our educator certification programs with formative
01:39:45.830 --> 01:39:49.023
assessment in terms of portfolio, thank you.
01:39:52.870 --> 01:39:57.870
Leslie Cooper, ESC20 EPP, followed by Dr. Carl Shapiros.
01:40:00.970 --> 01:40:02.400
Good afternoon, I'm Leslie Cooper,
01:40:02.400 --> 01:40:05.120
the Coordinator for Certification Programs at Education
01:40:05.120 --> 01:40:08.740
Service Center region 20 specifically talking today
01:40:08.740 --> 01:40:11.550
about our teacher alternative certification program.
01:40:11.550 --> 01:40:13.560
As a participating year three pilot
01:40:13.560 --> 01:40:15.380
alternative certification program,
01:40:15.380 --> 01:40:18.850
our evidence supports the edTPA assessment
01:40:18.850 --> 01:40:21.240
and strengthening intern, teacher instructional
01:40:21.240 --> 01:40:23.240
and reflective practices.
01:40:23.240 --> 01:40:27.640
Key edTPA components are explicitly found within the Texas
01:40:27.640 --> 01:40:31.122
Teacher Standards outlined in Texas Administrative Code
01:40:31.122 --> 01:40:33.667
and in the Texas Teacher Evaluation
01:40:33.667 --> 01:40:36.440
and Support System or T-TESS.
01:40:36.440 --> 01:40:39.200
The edTPA assessment is in direct alignment
01:40:39.200 --> 01:40:42.184
with the pedagogy Texas teachers are expected to execute
01:40:42.184 --> 01:40:46.130
as the classroom teacher of record and in direct alignment
01:40:46.130 --> 01:40:50.160
with the high quality instruction Texas students deserve.
01:40:50.160 --> 01:40:53.582
Engaging in the edTPA pilot has provided EPP instructors
01:40:53.582 --> 01:40:57.630
opportunities to grow professionally as they became familiar
01:40:57.630 --> 01:40:59.200
with the assessment framework.
01:40:59.200 --> 01:41:02.280
As with any change initial time spent internalizing
01:41:02.280 --> 01:41:05.050
the requirements and adjusting instructional design
01:41:05.050 --> 01:41:07.620
and delivery to prepare for this performance-based
01:41:07.620 --> 01:41:09.470
approach was a challenge.
01:41:09.470 --> 01:41:13.460
Now our instructors utilize longitudinal edTPA assessment
01:41:13.460 --> 01:41:17.730
data to drive instructional design refinement and coaching,
01:41:17.730 --> 01:41:20.500
because this assessment is evidence-based,
01:41:20.500 --> 01:41:22.940
teacher interns are able to take new learning,
01:41:22.940 --> 01:41:26.060
acquired from their interactions with the edTPA rubrics,
01:41:26.060 --> 01:41:28.910
and immediately apply it to their work.
01:41:28.910 --> 01:41:31.040
The students they serve today,
01:41:31.040 --> 01:41:33.440
this school year are the direct recipients
01:41:33.440 --> 01:41:36.250
of our teacher interns continuous professional growth
01:41:36.250 --> 01:41:38.290
through engagement in this process,
01:41:38.290 --> 01:41:40.730
looking at the MTPA through the lens of supporting,
01:41:40.730 --> 01:41:42.670
retaining and growing teachers.
01:41:42.670 --> 01:41:45.650
It is clear the similarities in this performance-based
01:41:45.650 --> 01:41:49.580
structured with written commentary of the edTPA,
01:41:49.580 --> 01:41:53.130
the national Board certification and the Texas performance
01:41:53.130 --> 01:41:56.470
assessment for school leaders or Passal is a strength.
01:41:56.470 --> 01:41:58.780
I closed by acknowledging the challenges inherent
01:41:58.780 --> 01:42:01.940
in any change that requires new learning for those charged,
01:42:01.940 --> 01:42:05.210
with implementation and highlighting the ultimate
01:42:05.210 --> 01:42:07.763
beneficiaries, the students we serve, thank you.
01:42:09.910 --> 01:42:12.010
Dr. Carl Shapiros, Texas,
01:42:12.010 --> 01:42:14.440
A and M University, San Antonio.
01:42:15.423 --> 01:42:18.480
Carl Shapiros, I'm the Dean for the College of Education
01:42:18.480 --> 01:42:21.766
and Human Development at Texas A and M, San Antonio.
01:42:21.766 --> 01:42:25.620
Prior to that role, I served as a President of National
01:42:25.620 --> 01:42:28.930
Assessment Organizations, I've written assessment textbooks
01:42:28.930 --> 01:42:30.650
that are used around the globe,
01:42:30.650 --> 01:42:32.610
have conducted research on assessment
01:42:32.610 --> 01:42:33.720
over the last 30 years.
01:42:33.720 --> 01:42:36.710
And I've also developed my own assessment instruments.
01:42:36.710 --> 01:42:39.650
I served as a CEO of a national and international
01:42:39.650 --> 01:42:42.920
organization that provided Board certifications
01:42:42.920 --> 01:42:44.820
through every state in the United States
01:42:44.820 --> 01:42:46.173
and around the world.
01:42:47.710 --> 01:42:50.220
I share that background to say that instrument construction
01:42:50.220 --> 01:42:52.070
is a complex undertaking.
01:42:52.070 --> 01:42:54.453
It's not something that can be done lightly.
01:42:55.510 --> 01:42:57.840
I spent a lot of time with the international standards
01:42:57.840 --> 01:42:59.800
organization and with the society
01:42:59.800 --> 01:43:01.710
for standards professionals.
01:43:01.710 --> 01:43:05.460
And as we look at the construction of alternative
01:43:05.460 --> 01:43:09.260
approaches, I have to take a step back and wonder
01:43:09.260 --> 01:43:12.690
what those processes were, and to look at those more
01:43:12.690 --> 01:43:14.810
carefully, before that we would move forward
01:43:14.810 --> 01:43:18.863
on anything that is developed at a new level.
01:43:19.980 --> 01:43:23.550
We are in the edTPA pilot process at Texas A and M,
01:43:23.550 --> 01:43:25.630
San Antonio, this is our second year,
01:43:25.630 --> 01:43:29.720
and we are doing so because we want to attract quality
01:43:29.720 --> 01:43:31.150
teachers and retain those teachers
01:43:31.150 --> 01:43:33.063
in historically underserved areas.
01:43:34.010 --> 01:43:37.211
Our teachers are prepared for day one from the classroom,
01:43:37.211 --> 01:43:40.860
and we assess this through the edTPA process.
01:43:40.860 --> 01:43:42.610
We've participated in two cycles.
01:43:42.610 --> 01:43:45.720
We've had a great deal of success and work in this area.
01:43:45.720 --> 01:43:47.620
We're embracing performance assessment,
01:43:47.620 --> 01:43:50.490
regardless of what this Board Board decides.
01:43:50.490 --> 01:43:51.560
And we'll be making,
01:43:51.560 --> 01:43:53.640
it allows us to make direct comparisons
01:43:53.640 --> 01:43:56.270
between those students in the pilot and outside of it.
01:43:56.270 --> 01:43:58.080
What we've seen is that our superintendents
01:43:58.080 --> 01:44:01.910
are highly impressed with the students who go through edTPA.
01:44:01.910 --> 01:44:03.580
They are wanting to hire those students
01:44:03.580 --> 01:44:06.881
who go through edTPA, we're seeing them more mature,
01:44:06.881 --> 01:44:09.087
more prepared and ready for day one.
01:44:09.087 --> 01:44:11.780
Every assessment comes with challenges.
01:44:11.780 --> 01:44:13.690
There are no perfect assessment instruments
01:44:13.690 --> 01:44:17.100
that are out there, but we ask that you approve edTPA
01:44:17.100 --> 01:44:18.950
as the assessment standard for Texas.
01:44:30.470 --> 01:44:32.700
This is a discussion item today,
01:44:32.700 --> 01:44:35.550
we're not taking any action.
01:44:35.550 --> 01:44:38.090
So I think how we should conclude today,
01:44:38.090 --> 01:44:41.940
given limited times is to kind of give direction to TA
01:44:41.940 --> 01:44:44.870
and what questions you have or what tasks you'd like
01:44:44.870 --> 01:44:48.250
to see them perform as we get closer to decision points.
01:44:48.250 --> 01:44:50.053
Is that fair, Emily?
01:44:55.706 --> 01:44:58.480
Okay, all right, go ahead Jessica.
01:44:58.480 --> 01:44:59.860
Dr. Kelly, I'm hearing in your voice.
01:44:59.860 --> 01:45:03.373
I will make it as snappy as I can, if that's okay with you.
01:45:04.750 --> 01:45:07.280
And first and foremost,
01:45:07.280 --> 01:45:10.910
I want to thank everyone who came to present public
01:45:10.910 --> 01:45:13.870
testimony today, the time it takes to travel to Austin,
01:45:13.870 --> 01:45:16.520
the thought and care folks put into the materials.
01:45:16.520 --> 01:45:19.970
I think we might've killed more than 10 trees probably
01:45:19.970 --> 01:45:22.853
during this SBEC meeting today, got a lot of paper,
01:45:22.853 --> 01:45:25.740
but really appreciate the passion with which folks
01:45:25.740 --> 01:45:27.090
spoke on their perspectives.
01:45:27.090 --> 01:45:29.500
You also received a good amount of written testimony
01:45:29.500 --> 01:45:32.160
as well, I know one test fire remarked around candidate
01:45:32.160 --> 01:45:34.430
perspective got a number of candidate perspectives
01:45:34.430 --> 01:45:36.130
as well in that written testimony,
01:45:36.130 --> 01:45:37.310
knowing that they're in their classrooms
01:45:37.310 --> 01:45:39.300
for the most part today,
01:45:39.300 --> 01:45:43.760
I do just want to touch on a few points addressed
01:45:43.760 --> 01:45:45.420
throughout the public testimony,
01:45:45.420 --> 01:45:48.390
and then have an opportunity to talk a little bit more
01:45:48.390 --> 01:45:50.300
around the pilot, and then again,
01:45:50.300 --> 01:45:52.320
the draft implementation plan that was included
01:45:52.320 --> 01:45:53.333
within your item.
01:45:55.330 --> 01:46:00.330
First, I do want to acknowledge where we are at this moment,
01:46:01.130 --> 01:46:03.040
in our discussion of certification exams
01:46:03.040 --> 01:46:04.530
for standard certification.
01:46:04.530 --> 01:46:07.430
What we know right now is that as the Commissioner shared
01:46:07.430 --> 01:46:08.940
in his remarks this morning,
01:46:08.940 --> 01:46:12.241
we need well-prepared beginning teachers now more than ever.
01:46:12.241 --> 01:46:15.440
And that means that we can't continue to have the status quo
01:46:15.440 --> 01:46:18.600
in terms of our educator preparation and certification.
01:46:18.600 --> 01:46:21.690
We know that edTPA is a valid and reliable assessment
01:46:21.690 --> 01:46:22.930
of teacher readiness.
01:46:22.930 --> 01:46:25.930
I know you did hear some testimony to the contrary.
01:46:25.930 --> 01:46:29.270
That was one specific study and subsequent data proved
01:46:29.270 --> 01:46:30.903
that study to be unfounded.
01:46:31.990 --> 01:46:35.189
We also, in looking at our Texas specific pilot data,
01:46:35.189 --> 01:46:39.046
it indicates strong results and no red flags.
01:46:39.046 --> 01:46:43.320
And then ultimately we've had the opportunity throughout
01:46:43.320 --> 01:46:46.160
the pilot process to learn and develop
01:46:46.160 --> 01:46:48.490
a Texas specific roadmap that can be used
01:46:48.490 --> 01:46:50.760
for effective implementation.
01:46:50.760 --> 01:46:51.710
As we heard though,
01:46:51.710 --> 01:46:53.960
I'm all the way back in the testimony of Dr. Ward
01:46:53.960 --> 01:46:56.060
and Dr. Edmonson and Ellis,
01:46:56.060 --> 01:46:59.190
they did share additional certification exam options,
01:46:59.190 --> 01:47:01.650
greatly appreciate their willingness to share them directly
01:47:01.650 --> 01:47:04.060
with you and the effort that they've invested
01:47:04.060 --> 01:47:05.850
in their research to date.
01:47:05.850 --> 01:47:08.680
As of now, though, no options that were presented
01:47:08.680 --> 01:47:10.730
to the Board or ready for implementation.
01:47:11.960 --> 01:47:13.050
We have though in the past,
01:47:13.050 --> 01:47:16.090
discuss with the Board that you have at your disposal,
01:47:16.090 --> 01:47:19.170
the opportunity to implement additional options
01:47:19.170 --> 01:47:23.280
for certification at any time, but in doing so,
01:47:23.280 --> 01:47:26.510
we would recommend the codification of a process,
01:47:26.510 --> 01:47:29.790
and a set of criteria that would allow you to that
01:47:29.790 --> 01:47:33.860
and approve additional performance certification exams
01:47:33.860 --> 01:47:36.030
in alignment with your expectations,
01:47:36.030 --> 01:47:39.810
similar to what Dr. Shapiro is named in his testimony.
01:47:39.810 --> 01:47:42.400
Again, we don't want to delay moving forward
01:47:42.400 --> 01:47:45.790
with needed changes, given the current circumstances
01:47:45.790 --> 01:47:48.728
for our students in Texas, but do you recognize
01:47:48.728 --> 01:47:51.930
that there would be an opportunity to keep the door open
01:47:51.930 --> 01:47:56.080
as additional options were ready and met your expectations
01:47:56.080 --> 01:47:57.653
to be implemented in the field.
01:47:59.470 --> 01:48:02.770
Board, you directed TA staff to implement the ITPA pilot
01:48:02.770 --> 01:48:05.540
back all the way in 2019 to really understand
01:48:05.540 --> 01:48:08.000
the impact of the assessment on Texas candidates
01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:10.970
and students in alignment with your goal of increasing
01:48:10.970 --> 01:48:14.790
teacher quality, the Texas pilot has grown
01:48:14.790 --> 01:48:18.500
across those three years, and we now have 40 programs.
01:48:18.500 --> 01:48:21.160
Many of whom you heard from today who are participating
01:48:21.160 --> 01:48:23.277
in the third of your year, the pilot,
01:48:23.277 --> 01:48:26.340
and that represents about a third of all programs in Texas.
01:48:26.340 --> 01:48:29.080
And those are representative of alternative and traditional
01:48:29.080 --> 01:48:32.113
programs across the geographical landscape at the state.
01:48:35.260 --> 01:48:38.350
What we see in to date is that the edTPA pilot data
01:48:38.350 --> 01:48:41.060
indicates strong results and no red flags.
01:48:41.060 --> 01:48:44.080
We saw an increase in candidate performance on MTPA
01:48:44.080 --> 01:48:46.130
from year one to year two of the pilot,
01:48:46.130 --> 01:48:49.530
which indicates as many programs shared that they are using
01:48:49.530 --> 01:48:51.810
that data to improve their training
01:48:51.810 --> 01:48:53.730
and support of candidates.
01:48:53.730 --> 01:48:56.620
EPS are using meaningful data to improve,
01:48:56.620 --> 01:48:59.570
which means that candidates are getting stronger support
01:48:59.570 --> 01:49:02.020
on those foundational skills of teacher quality,
01:49:02.020 --> 01:49:04.320
that planning instruction and assessment,
01:49:04.320 --> 01:49:07.880
as the Commissioner shared in his address this morning
01:49:07.880 --> 01:49:11.310
certification exams, ultimately change practice.
01:49:11.310 --> 01:49:13.800
That's a core tenant of your strategy
01:49:13.800 --> 01:49:15.263
to improve teacher quality.
01:49:17.600 --> 01:49:20.730
In addition, as we look at our performance
01:49:20.730 --> 01:49:22.490
across the demographic groups,
01:49:22.490 --> 01:49:25.360
currently candidate performance on your current PPR
01:49:25.360 --> 01:49:28.780
certification exam has performance gaps among demographic
01:49:28.780 --> 01:49:30.350
groups by means score,
01:49:30.350 --> 01:49:33.020
which translates into some pretty significant gaps
01:49:33.020 --> 01:49:36.290
in passing percentages, across demographic groups,
01:49:36.290 --> 01:49:39.850
a 16% gap between your African-American and white candidates
01:49:39.850 --> 01:49:43.230
and a 10% gap between your Hispanic and white candidates
01:49:43.230 --> 01:49:46.430
counter to that candidates performed at near parody
01:49:46.430 --> 01:49:48.920
in their mean scores, across demographic groups
01:49:48.920 --> 01:49:51.064
on the edTPA.
01:49:51.064 --> 01:49:54.870
Texas specific data, therefore indicates that the edTPA
01:49:54.870 --> 01:49:57.950
is a significantly more equitable exam pathway
01:49:57.950 --> 01:50:00.130
than your current PPR exam.
01:50:00.130 --> 01:50:02.430
And we had programs that name to that as well.
01:50:05.120 --> 01:50:06.470
As you saw on the previous slide,
01:50:06.470 --> 01:50:09.720
I did not name a passing percentage for the edTPA.
01:50:09.720 --> 01:50:12.700
And that is because Texas does not currently have a passing
01:50:12.700 --> 01:50:14.260
score for the edTPA.
01:50:14.260 --> 01:50:17.324
For the purpose of the pilot, a complete edTPA portfolio
01:50:17.324 --> 01:50:19.365
equals a passing score,
01:50:19.365 --> 01:50:24.365
but Texas has complete control over how you establish
01:50:24.370 --> 01:50:28.300
a passing standard for this exam and the foresight
01:50:28.300 --> 01:50:31.010
of the Board to implement an edTPA pilot,
01:50:31.010 --> 01:50:35.020
means that we will have 1000s upon 1000s of candidate data
01:50:35.020 --> 01:50:39.030
points to inform the establishment of that passing standard
01:50:39.030 --> 01:50:40.570
down the line.
01:50:40.570 --> 01:50:43.090
We did get some really great feedback from Board members
01:50:43.090 --> 01:50:44.640
at the October meeting, though.
01:50:45.728 --> 01:50:48.606
That'd be helpful to look at what some of that modeled pass
01:50:48.606 --> 01:50:51.437
rate data would look like based upon our current data.
01:50:51.437 --> 01:50:54.830
And so I have a chart for you on the slide just
01:50:54.830 --> 01:50:57.367
to orient you to it on the left-hand side,
01:50:57.367 --> 01:51:02.260
that is our elementary literacy with math assessment,
01:51:02.260 --> 01:51:04.830
and that scored out of 90 points.
01:51:04.830 --> 01:51:07.560
And you can see along the left-hand column,
01:51:07.560 --> 01:51:09.930
the amount of points that a candidate would need
01:51:09.930 --> 01:51:11.260
to earn to pass,
01:51:11.260 --> 01:51:13.820
and then the percentage of candidates that would pass
01:51:13.820 --> 01:51:15.630
at that passing score.
01:51:15.630 --> 01:51:20.490
So for example, if a candidate earned a 40 on the exam,
01:51:20.490 --> 01:51:22.800
that would be a 77% passing rate.
01:51:22.800 --> 01:51:26.200
If they are to 35, that would be a 92% passing rate.
01:51:26.200 --> 01:51:28.370
Texas can set its own score.
01:51:28.370 --> 01:51:31.160
The same is true in the right-hand column for all
01:51:31.160 --> 01:51:33.420
of our other certification areas that are scored
01:51:33.420 --> 01:51:35.440
out of a 75.
01:51:35.440 --> 01:51:38.040
In addition, I have an additional handout in your green
01:51:38.040 --> 01:51:43.040
folder that models the year one versus year two data.
01:51:43.190 --> 01:51:46.830
So you can actually see that the potential pass rates
01:51:46.830 --> 01:51:49.830
went up from year one to year two at the pilot, again,
01:51:49.830 --> 01:51:53.327
programs learning lessons and improving practice,
01:51:53.327 --> 01:51:55.753
and that that being demonstrated in candidate outcomes.
01:51:58.880 --> 01:52:01.650
Ultimately Board, given this context,
01:52:01.650 --> 01:52:04.930
we did want to take a step back and ground in your rationale
01:52:04.930 --> 01:52:08.240
for implementing edTPA in the first place,
01:52:08.240 --> 01:52:11.330
you have had a consistent charge from 2015 onward
01:52:11.330 --> 01:52:14.410
to improve teacher quality due to persistent challenges
01:52:14.410 --> 01:52:17.400
and student outcomes and teacher attrition challenges
01:52:17.400 --> 01:52:20.270
that the Commissioner raised that are still around today,
01:52:20.270 --> 01:52:21.920
across the past six years,
01:52:21.920 --> 01:52:24.480
you've recognized that the current preparation
01:52:24.480 --> 01:52:27.780
and certification practices are not producing desired
01:52:27.780 --> 01:52:30.180
results for our Texas students,
01:52:30.180 --> 01:52:33.000
including our current requirements to implement
01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:34.900
the current PPR exam.
01:52:34.900 --> 01:52:36.970
And then our current requirements that require
01:52:36.970 --> 01:52:39.310
our preparation programs throughout the course
01:52:39.310 --> 01:52:41.940
of their preparation to formatively evaluate
01:52:41.940 --> 01:52:45.563
their candidates in through such as a T-TESS appraisal
01:52:45.563 --> 01:52:50.563
or the development of a portfolio, and then recommend
01:52:50.630 --> 01:52:52.200
a candidate for certification.
01:52:52.200 --> 01:52:54.290
Those are already your requirements.
01:52:54.290 --> 01:52:58.310
You require PPR, you require local performance assessment
01:52:58.310 --> 01:53:01.500
or formal evaluations from programs.
01:53:01.500 --> 01:53:04.520
And what you've shared is that those are not yielding
01:53:04.520 --> 01:53:06.840
the significant change in terms of student outcomes
01:53:06.840 --> 01:53:07.703
that we desire.
01:53:08.950 --> 01:53:11.470
Ultimately among many of your strategies
01:53:11.470 --> 01:53:14.090
and solutions to specifically address this problem,
01:53:14.090 --> 01:53:16.550
you directed staff to look at alternatives to the current
01:53:16.550 --> 01:53:19.480
PPR exam that actually asked candidates to demonstrate their
01:53:19.480 --> 01:53:22.570
competence on a certification exam.
01:53:22.570 --> 01:53:25.600
And therefore you also directed staff to implement the edTPA
01:53:25.600 --> 01:53:28.980
pilot to understand the impact on Texas candidates,
01:53:28.980 --> 01:53:31.400
given the data and given the lessons learned throughout the
01:53:31.400 --> 01:53:35.530
edTPA pilot staff's recommendation is to replace the PPR
01:53:35.530 --> 01:53:39.020
with the edTPA as the pedagogy exam requirement,
01:53:39.020 --> 01:53:43.300
but also to leave that door open and codify a process
01:53:43.300 --> 01:53:46.390
to vet and approve additional certification exam options
01:53:46.390 --> 01:53:49.520
as they become ready in the field and demonstrate equitable
01:53:49.520 --> 01:53:51.673
results to the edTPA.
01:53:55.423 --> 01:53:58.424
I know that many testifiers shared this as well,
01:53:58.424 --> 01:54:01.260
that change at scale is never easy.
01:54:01.260 --> 01:54:03.160
The great foresight of the Board, though,
01:54:03.160 --> 01:54:05.490
in implementing the edTPA pilot,
01:54:05.490 --> 01:54:09.830
it afforded TA staff and truly Texas preparation programs
01:54:09.830 --> 01:54:10.830
across the state.
01:54:10.830 --> 01:54:13.890
The opportunity to learn some really meaningful lessons
01:54:13.890 --> 01:54:17.090
on how to implement edTPA within the Texas context,
01:54:17.090 --> 01:54:21.260
we now have an incredibly rich bank of trainings, resources,
01:54:21.260 --> 01:54:24.230
and tools that are Texas specific,
01:54:24.230 --> 01:54:27.040
and that are leveraged by Texas programs and are led
01:54:27.040 --> 01:54:30.130
by Texas programs that support candidates programs
01:54:30.130 --> 01:54:31.890
and their LEAS partners
01:54:31.890 --> 01:54:34.700
to lead towards successful edTPA implementation.
01:54:34.700 --> 01:54:36.690
And I would say we heard from folks at a hallmark
01:54:36.690 --> 01:54:38.970
of the edTPA pilot has been the opportunity
01:54:38.970 --> 01:54:41.260
for preparation programs to actually come together
01:54:41.260 --> 01:54:44.000
and collaborate with one another and share resources
01:54:44.000 --> 01:54:45.130
and best practices.
01:54:45.130 --> 01:54:47.440
It's really brought the community together in a continuous
01:54:47.440 --> 01:54:49.290
improvement and learning environment.
01:54:51.280 --> 01:54:55.890
I have outlined within attachment two of the item
01:54:55.890 --> 01:55:00.310
on pages nine through 11, a draft implementation plan
01:55:00.310 --> 01:55:01.730
for the edTPA.
01:55:01.730 --> 01:55:04.060
It would name that the lessons we learned throughout
01:55:04.914 --> 01:55:07.777
the edTPA pilot have informed the development of this
01:55:07.777 --> 01:55:10.960
implementation plan and really seek to support a strong,
01:55:10.960 --> 01:55:14.290
but also slow and methodical transition to implementation
01:55:14.290 --> 01:55:15.273
of the exam.
01:55:16.350 --> 01:55:19.370
In the recommendation currently is to begin
01:55:19.370 --> 01:55:23.420
implementation of edTPA, to replace the PPR for first time,
01:55:23.420 --> 01:55:28.420
test takers beginning in the 22, 23 academic year.
01:55:29.207 --> 01:55:31.960
And we would recommend for it to be implemented non
01:55:31.960 --> 01:55:35.360
consequentially by that we mean we would carry forward
01:55:35.360 --> 01:55:37.480
the same requirements we do during the pilot.
01:55:37.480 --> 01:55:40.820
If you submit a complete portfolio, you pass the exam.
01:55:40.820 --> 01:55:42.980
We would not have a cut score.
01:55:42.980 --> 01:55:44.980
When I say first time test takers.
01:55:44.980 --> 01:55:49.040
I say that any candidate who took the PPR
01:55:49.040 --> 01:55:52.760
before the beginning of the academic year, but did not pass,
01:55:52.760 --> 01:55:56.010
could continue to take the PPR throughout the first year
01:55:56.010 --> 01:55:57.860
of this transition.
01:55:57.860 --> 01:56:00.220
And we would use the data collected during
01:56:00.220 --> 01:56:04.371
the 22, 23 academic year to also inform the establishment
01:56:04.371 --> 01:56:07.743
of a set of phased in cut scores.
01:56:08.760 --> 01:56:11.610
If we would continue non-consequential implementation
01:56:11.610 --> 01:56:16.240
in 23, 24 require edTPA for all test takers,
01:56:16.240 --> 01:56:18.870
seeking probationary or standard certification
01:56:18.870 --> 01:56:22.480
and engage in the process to actually implement
01:56:22.480 --> 01:56:24.030
those passing standards.
01:56:24.030 --> 01:56:27.106
And to ensure that the field has ample notice
01:56:27.106 --> 01:56:29.740
of that expectation before it becomes a requirement.
01:56:29.740 --> 01:56:33.610
And then in 24, 25, the recommendation would be to move
01:56:33.610 --> 01:56:35.810
towards consequential implementation,
01:56:35.810 --> 01:56:39.390
essentially setting that score for edTPA that a candidate
01:56:39.390 --> 01:56:40.610
would need to meet to pass.
01:56:40.610 --> 01:56:44.060
So again, it is a slow phase in timeline
01:56:44.060 --> 01:56:46.110
to ensure that there's that opportunity
01:56:46.110 --> 01:56:47.370
for that continuous improvement
01:56:47.370 --> 01:56:49.430
among Texas Preparation Programs,
01:56:49.430 --> 01:56:51.810
and that we're intentionally setting those cut scores
01:56:51.810 --> 01:56:54.510
to not create undue barriers, to entry into the field.
01:56:56.110 --> 01:56:59.790
As we have shared what we know right now,
01:56:59.790 --> 01:57:02.360
the edTPA pilot has yielded strong data
01:57:02.360 --> 01:57:04.570
and it's ready to be implemented.
01:57:04.570 --> 01:57:06.850
We recognize that there are other options that folks
01:57:06.850 --> 01:57:10.569
have invested time, resources, energy, and exploring,
01:57:10.569 --> 01:57:14.490
and we recognize, and we therefore would name that the Board
01:57:14.490 --> 01:57:16.695
does have the opportunity.
01:57:16.695 --> 01:57:18.840
If you choose to go down that path to also codify a process
01:57:18.840 --> 01:57:20.773
by which to that those other options,
01:57:20.773 --> 01:57:24.150
it's a similar process that you engaged in with the edTPA
01:57:24.150 --> 01:57:25.253
down the line as well.
01:57:27.240 --> 01:57:30.597
Board, I would just finally name in your statutory charge.
01:57:30.597 --> 01:57:34.550
It reinforces that your role is to ensure that candidates
01:57:34.550 --> 01:57:37.150
for certification have demonstrated the knowledge
01:57:37.150 --> 01:57:40.336
and skills necessary to improve performance of our diverse
01:57:40.336 --> 01:57:41.810
student population, and we would say based upon
01:57:41.810 --> 01:57:43.680
the Commissioner's comments this morning,
01:57:43.680 --> 01:57:46.480
teacher readiness to improve performance of Texas
01:57:46.480 --> 01:57:49.020
students is more important now than ever.
01:57:49.020 --> 01:57:52.532
And edTPA is a strategic tool as a certification exam
01:57:52.532 --> 01:57:55.680
supports preparation programs in really developing those
01:57:55.680 --> 01:57:58.420
beginning teachers who have demonstrated their competency
01:57:58.420 --> 01:58:00.393
to improve Texas student outcomes.
01:58:01.410 --> 01:58:03.920
And so with that Board would love your,
01:58:03.920 --> 01:58:06.850
any questions or feedback that you have regarding next
01:58:06.850 --> 01:58:09.300
steps, additional questions that I can bring back
01:58:09.300 --> 01:58:12.950
to you with additional information around implementing edTPA
01:58:12.950 --> 01:58:15.620
to replace the PPR, and then secondly,
01:58:15.620 --> 01:58:18.620
a process to codify a process to vet
01:58:18.620 --> 01:58:21.163
and approve additional performance assessments.
01:58:24.120 --> 01:58:27.413
Cool, all right, Ms. Streepey.
01:58:30.340 --> 01:58:33.410
One question while they take PPR during
01:58:33.410 --> 01:58:35.702
those implementation years,
01:58:35.702 --> 01:58:38.052
or will it just be you complete your portfolio?
01:58:39.280 --> 01:58:40.615
Thank you, Ms. Streepey.
01:58:40.615 --> 01:58:42.740
It would just be that you would complete your portfolio
01:58:42.740 --> 01:58:44.140
during that first year.
01:58:44.140 --> 01:58:47.870
So that 22, 23 academic year staff's recommendation
01:58:47.870 --> 01:58:51.360
would be, let's say I'm a candidate in a program right now
01:58:51.360 --> 01:58:53.756
I've taken the PPR, I have not been able to pass.
01:58:53.756 --> 01:58:56.720
And so I'm in that string of already engaging on the line
01:58:56.720 --> 01:59:00.460
of PPR that I would be able to continue to take PPR
01:59:00.460 --> 01:59:02.640
during the 22, 23 academic year.
01:59:02.640 --> 01:59:06.560
But if I'm being prepared in 22, 23,
01:59:06.560 --> 01:59:08.720
that I'd be required to take edTPA.
01:59:08.720 --> 01:59:11.040
Okay, and one more question,
01:59:11.040 --> 01:59:13.782
can edTPA be modified for Texas at all?
01:59:13.782 --> 01:59:16.923
Or is it you take the whole package and that's it,
01:59:16.923 --> 01:59:20.930
or are there some, if there were certain controversial
01:59:20.930 --> 01:59:25.900
or particularly sticky things that we can maybe agree on,
01:59:25.900 --> 01:59:27.760
can it be modified?
01:59:27.760 --> 01:59:29.910
That's a great question, Streepey.
01:59:29.910 --> 01:59:32.540
I would name that edTPA has been proven to be valid
01:59:32.540 --> 01:59:36.120
and reliable because there are those set set of rubrics
01:59:36.120 --> 01:59:37.919
that have those constructs
01:59:37.919 --> 01:59:39.980
and that's what's being evaluated.
01:59:39.980 --> 01:59:41.530
There are opportunities though,
01:59:42.463 --> 01:59:45.294
I think to really think about ways that we can modify
01:59:45.294 --> 01:59:49.570
the training that's provided to Texas programs
01:59:49.570 --> 01:59:52.270
to ensure that we've got a really clear set of resources
01:59:52.270 --> 01:59:54.490
and tools that are Texas specific.
01:59:54.490 --> 01:59:57.690
And we've also had conversations with testing vendor
01:59:57.690 --> 01:59:59.610
around the training of scores,
01:59:59.610 --> 02:00:02.853
specifically with a lens on Texas specific context.
02:00:05.302 --> 02:00:06.193
Dr. Rodriguez.
02:00:06.193 --> 02:00:08.170
Thank you, Dr. Kelly.
02:00:08.170 --> 02:00:11.290
First, I want to thank Ms. McLaughlin for having brought
02:00:11.290 --> 02:00:15.990
the data, thank you very much that that really illustrates
02:00:15.990 --> 02:00:20.190
how our candidates have been performing based on exactly
02:00:20.190 --> 02:00:21.830
the number of points, right.
02:00:21.830 --> 02:00:24.660
That they are achieving during this pilot,
02:00:24.660 --> 02:00:27.439
which is basically pass fail.
02:00:27.439 --> 02:00:30.853
I have a series of questions, I hope you don't mind.
02:00:30.853 --> 02:00:33.920
And I want to try to be very fast because I have to run
02:00:33.920 --> 02:00:34.753
to the airport.
02:00:36.010 --> 02:00:41.010
So for next time, could you please on page four of the item,
02:00:42.319 --> 02:00:45.760
you mentioned that there are some strategies
02:00:45.760 --> 02:00:50.140
in mind to address the challenge of cost,
02:00:50.140 --> 02:00:54.380
and I will appreciate for next time more specifics
02:00:54.380 --> 02:00:59.380
on what exactly does staff is proposing to address
02:00:59.630 --> 02:01:02.020
that challenge, please.
02:01:02.020 --> 02:01:07.020
And then on page nine and the implementation plan,
02:01:07.740 --> 02:01:10.680
could you further define non-consequential for me
02:01:10.680 --> 02:01:12.480
in terms of the EPP?
02:01:12.480 --> 02:01:16.870
I am assuming that the EPP is still going to be held
02:01:16.870 --> 02:01:19.950
accountable for the pass fail of the candidates.
02:01:19.950 --> 02:01:20.783
Is that correct?
02:01:22.040 --> 02:01:24.580
That would be our initial recommendation,
02:01:24.580 --> 02:01:25.750
but ultimately again,
02:01:25.750 --> 02:01:28.220
knowing that the complete portfolio equals a pass during
02:01:28.220 --> 02:01:31.870
that period, but because we'd be out of a pilot phase
02:01:31.870 --> 02:01:33.800
programs would be accountable for their candidates,
02:01:33.800 --> 02:01:35.380
either passing or failing the exam,
02:01:35.380 --> 02:01:36.930
but certainly open to feedback.
02:01:38.216 --> 02:01:42.157
Okay, well, I would encourage the rest of the Board too.
02:01:56.120 --> 02:01:59.600
You are recommending in 23, 24 that all test takers move
02:01:59.600 --> 02:02:04.600
to edTPA, does that mean that if prior to September 1st
02:02:05.130 --> 02:02:10.130
of 22, someone failed the PPR and hasn't yet been successful
02:02:11.070 --> 02:02:12.590
either because they did not retest
02:02:12.590 --> 02:02:16.110
or for whatever reason does that mean that in 23, 24,
02:02:16.110 --> 02:02:17.743
they will have to move to edTPA?
02:02:20.603 --> 02:02:21.440
Okay, after all this time,
02:02:21.440 --> 02:02:23.760
you think I would have remembered press the button.
02:02:23.760 --> 02:02:27.060
That's a great question. Dr. Rodriguez, ultimately,
02:02:27.060 --> 02:02:29.470
the way that staff was envisioning the implementation
02:02:29.470 --> 02:02:33.215
was similar to how we phase out a certification exam
02:02:33.215 --> 02:02:36.117
when we move into a new exam.
02:02:36.117 --> 02:02:39.360
So we ultimately said that there was a year long period by
02:02:39.360 --> 02:02:41.740
which if I started with the PPR,
02:02:41.740 --> 02:02:43.840
I could have additional opportunities to attempt
02:02:43.840 --> 02:02:46.910
to pass the PPR, but then ultimately after that year long
02:02:46.910 --> 02:02:50.290
overlap that we would end administration the PPR
02:02:50.290 --> 02:02:53.563
and only have administration of the edTPA.
02:02:55.352 --> 02:02:57.490
Okay, so a very important communication campaign
02:02:57.490 --> 02:03:00.793
would have to take place in that regard,
02:03:02.479 --> 02:03:07.243
in defining the faced in standards,
02:03:07.243 --> 02:03:12.243
you are suggesting that there will be a body of individuals
02:03:14.924 --> 02:03:19.690
and I'd like to know more of how will those individuals be
02:03:19.690 --> 02:03:22.550
selected and who will have a voice at determining
02:03:22.550 --> 02:03:25.793
what the face in passing standard would be.
02:03:26.760 --> 02:03:28.160
Absolutely, Dr. Rodriguez.
02:03:28.160 --> 02:03:30.520
And I can just name quickly for you that we have
02:03:30.520 --> 02:03:33.060
a standardized process by which we recruit folks
02:03:33.060 --> 02:03:35.410
to engage in all of our standards,
02:03:35.410 --> 02:03:39.030
setting committees for all of your certification exams.
02:03:39.030 --> 02:03:41.100
And so I can certainly bring some more information back
02:03:41.100 --> 02:03:45.260
to you in February, more information back to you in February
02:03:45.260 --> 02:03:47.640
around what that process entails.
02:03:47.640 --> 02:03:51.014
If I may include a recommendation,
02:03:51.014 --> 02:03:55.090
I think it would be extremely important to have accurate
02:03:55.090 --> 02:03:58.681
representation of EPPs in that particular body,
02:03:58.681 --> 02:04:02.960
as the individuals who will have to ultimately
02:04:02.960 --> 02:04:07.623
make this happen and guide candidates through the process.
02:04:09.380 --> 02:04:13.970
And my next question has to do with communication
02:04:13.970 --> 02:04:16.520
to the LEAS on page 10,
02:04:16.520 --> 02:04:21.520
you'll mention that piece as part of the communication plan.
02:04:25.000 --> 02:04:28.780
I think that's going to be a huge component.
02:04:28.780 --> 02:04:32.210
I think that LEAS need to recognize the lift
02:04:32.210 --> 02:04:34.400
that this requires on their part as well.
02:04:34.400 --> 02:04:37.100
I'm sure that the, if they're participating in the pilot,
02:04:37.100 --> 02:04:42.100
they are very well aware, but video, particularly,
02:04:42.710 --> 02:04:45.710
allowing candidates to video in their classrooms,
02:04:45.710 --> 02:04:48.360
what will those processes entail?
02:04:48.360 --> 02:04:50.250
How are we going to work together?
02:04:50.250 --> 02:04:53.900
I think there's got to be a lot of transparency to the LEAS
02:04:53.900 --> 02:04:57.830
to recognize the support that that will be needed.
02:04:57.830 --> 02:05:01.220
And so I would be interested in seeing more detail
02:05:01.220 --> 02:05:03.740
about the communication plan into the LEAS
02:05:05.258 --> 02:05:06.930
if you would, please.
02:05:06.930 --> 02:05:09.780
Absolutely, Dr. Rodriguez, if I may, I think too,
02:05:09.780 --> 02:05:12.950
with the implementation of your proposal of your rules
02:05:12.950 --> 02:05:14.820
around Chapter 228 earlier today,
02:05:14.820 --> 02:05:17.500
with the virtual observation component,
02:05:17.500 --> 02:05:19.760
I recognize that there's probably a broader communication
02:05:19.760 --> 02:05:22.320
that needs to, we need to share with LEAS
02:05:22.320 --> 02:05:25.545
around videotaping within our classrooms
02:05:25.545 --> 02:05:27.053
for candidate support.
02:05:37.760 --> 02:05:42.100
The communication plan includes providing updates to LEAS
02:05:42.100 --> 02:05:45.660
and what's mentioned here are letters,
02:05:45.660 --> 02:05:48.840
wEPPage and convenings.
02:05:48.840 --> 02:05:53.195
So I am interested in perhaps exploring other forms
02:05:53.195 --> 02:05:57.970
of communication, including trainings,
02:05:57.970 --> 02:06:00.933
perhaps through the service centers,
02:06:03.217 --> 02:06:08.217
even considering requirements asks if they will host
02:06:09.620 --> 02:06:12.220
candidates and in their districts or schools
02:06:12.220 --> 02:06:13.950
to have a representative attend training.
02:06:13.950 --> 02:06:16.210
So there's full understanding
02:06:16.210 --> 02:06:19.010
of the collaboration requirement,
02:06:19.010 --> 02:06:23.983
I think would be beneficial in my estimation.
02:06:25.360 --> 02:06:28.030
And I promise this is my last comment.
02:06:28.030 --> 02:06:30.560
I think it's important to recognize on page 12,
02:06:30.560 --> 02:06:32.976
how it is mentioned here,
02:06:32.976 --> 02:06:37.976
that we need to look at this as an assessment
02:06:39.650 --> 02:06:42.570
of what a beginning teacher is able to do.
02:06:42.570 --> 02:06:44.420
I think that's very important too,
02:06:44.420 --> 02:06:45.740
for all of us to keep in mind that
02:06:45.740 --> 02:06:50.740
this is for a beginning teacher performance assessment.
02:06:50.890 --> 02:06:55.870
And I appreciate, the willingness to listen to me
02:06:55.870 --> 02:06:58.233
and I apologize that I have to excuse.
02:06:59.261 --> 02:07:01.960
It's okay, we appreciate the specificity
02:07:01.960 --> 02:07:04.276
of your questions, really appreciate it.
02:07:04.276 --> 02:07:06.792
All right, other yes, Dr. Galvan.
02:07:06.792 --> 02:07:11.060
Thank you, first of all, thank you everybody,
02:07:11.060 --> 02:07:16.060
for whatever, from the hard work you all have put in,
02:07:16.360 --> 02:07:21.360
in scale has put in, but also to everyone in the room,
02:07:21.495 --> 02:07:23.511
all of us, in fact,
02:07:23.511 --> 02:07:28.511
because ultimately the goal has been to improve education
02:07:29.780 --> 02:07:32.520
in Texas, so our goals are the same,
02:07:32.520 --> 02:07:34.580
it's how can we come to a consensus
02:07:34.580 --> 02:07:36.760
of how are we gonna get there?
02:07:36.760 --> 02:07:41.760
My question specific to you is what kind of support
02:07:44.530 --> 02:07:49.530
can programs and candidates get from the cost scholarships
02:07:52.340 --> 02:07:53.960
support to programs?
02:07:53.960 --> 02:07:57.390
Because this is obviously even going to bring up the cost
02:07:57.390 --> 02:08:01.770
for certification, STR did the same thing.
02:08:01.770 --> 02:08:05.980
That's one and two, on page 146.
02:08:05.980 --> 02:08:09.483
When you look at your post pilot plan,
02:08:10.950 --> 02:08:15.950
because there's so many, if the Board were to decide yes
02:08:16.800 --> 02:08:21.223
to whatever, in particularly to edTPA,
02:08:22.850 --> 02:08:26.580
these deadlines are soon approaching and are these dates
02:08:26.580 --> 02:08:31.580
set, or is it a way because there's so many programs
02:08:31.810 --> 02:08:36.810
and students and candidates, and to move this a little bit,
02:08:38.737 --> 02:08:41.980
are these dates set, like, for example,
02:08:41.980 --> 02:08:45.890
it's got to be 23, 24,
02:08:45.890 --> 02:08:50.310
because there's so many programs that have a piloted
02:08:50.310 --> 02:08:52.690
and there's so many candidates.
02:08:52.690 --> 02:08:57.690
Is there any way of discussing this post pilot, the dates?
02:09:01.121 --> 02:09:04.163
So Dr. Galvan to address your first question related
02:09:04.163 --> 02:09:06.960
to cost, and as Dr. Rodriguez requested too,
02:09:06.960 --> 02:09:08.520
I'll certainly bring back the ed,
02:09:08.520 --> 02:09:11.110
a full slate of strategies that our preparation,
02:09:11.110 --> 02:09:13.630
our preparation groups in the pilot have leveraged
02:09:13.630 --> 02:09:16.040
to think really strategically around cost.
02:09:16.040 --> 02:09:18.610
We are also in conversations with our testing vendor
02:09:18.610 --> 02:09:21.710
around opportunities for vouchers or additional resources.
02:09:21.710 --> 02:09:24.410
So there are certainly strategies in the field,
02:09:24.410 --> 02:09:26.990
and I'm happy to bring back sort of the full list
02:09:26.990 --> 02:09:28.300
to you in February,
02:09:28.300 --> 02:09:31.379
related to implementation timelines would,
02:09:31.379 --> 02:09:33.990
from your perspective, Dr. Galvan leading a preparation
02:09:33.990 --> 02:09:36.961
program, would you have recommendations regarding
02:09:36.961 --> 02:09:39.690
these timelines, thinking about sort of,
02:09:39.690 --> 02:09:43.120
I think transparently staff's been at the forefront
02:09:43.120 --> 02:09:44.850
of our mind has really been the urgent needs
02:09:44.850 --> 02:09:47.600
that we see across our Texas classrooms at this moment.
02:09:47.600 --> 02:09:50.820
And then also some of the observation of programs
02:09:50.820 --> 02:09:54.630
in the pilot who in implementation of edTPA,
02:09:54.630 --> 02:09:57.130
that's really where they've had the opportunity to learn
02:09:57.130 --> 02:10:00.710
lessons while it being non-consequential and really
02:10:00.710 --> 02:10:03.360
kind of continuously improve in their practice.
02:10:03.360 --> 02:10:06.090
But we'd love to hear if there's thoughts on us sort of,
02:10:06.090 --> 02:10:08.490
would it be a one-year extension.
02:10:08.490 --> 02:10:09.920
We'd love to hear a little bit more.
02:10:09.920 --> 02:10:12.993
At least because from a program perspective,
02:10:15.380 --> 02:10:19.080
we're adding the accountability of the star progress
02:10:19.080 --> 02:10:22.930
measure, so we're dealing with that change.
02:10:22.930 --> 02:10:25.483
Then the science of teaching, reading,
02:10:26.999 --> 02:10:31.940
it's our candidates providing positive feedback with STR
02:10:31.940 --> 02:10:36.440
they say I better how to teach reading,
02:10:36.440 --> 02:10:39.280
how to help a struggling reader.
02:10:39.280 --> 02:10:42.040
And because if that's one of our targets
02:10:42.040 --> 02:10:44.540
to bring up our reading scores,
02:10:44.540 --> 02:10:49.540
it seems like it can appear to be overwhelming,
02:10:51.900 --> 02:10:56.350
to be dealing with the COVID pause and the academic,
02:10:56.350 --> 02:11:01.350
the attrition, STR, all the new indicators coming in,
02:11:03.670 --> 02:11:08.670
and then such a quick turnaround on 23, 24.
02:11:09.850 --> 02:11:12.157
That would be overwhelming.
02:11:16.640 --> 02:11:18.830
I think the intent is good.
02:11:18.830 --> 02:11:22.440
It's I understand deadlines are important,
02:11:22.440 --> 02:11:25.400
but whatever it is it's it seems like things
02:11:25.400 --> 02:11:27.339
are moving a little too fast, okay.
02:11:27.339 --> 02:11:28.540
Appreciate that feedback.
02:11:28.540 --> 02:11:31.240
Patrick Avant will certainly take the considerations
02:11:31.240 --> 02:11:33.863
they bring forward for a potential real text for you.
02:11:35.690 --> 02:11:39.280
Mr. Superintendent Kim.
02:11:39.280 --> 02:11:41.230
Just to make a comment and maybe a request
02:11:41.230 --> 02:11:44.280
if this is possible, just so from a commentary perspective,
02:11:44.280 --> 02:11:46.440
Mr. Coleman just earlier asked a question
02:11:46.440 --> 02:11:49.360
to our guest speakers and the potent-testimony
02:11:49.360 --> 02:11:50.840
about the first state issue.
02:11:50.840 --> 02:11:53.350
And I think it's clear,
02:11:53.350 --> 02:11:54.800
I'm not really sure that there's an answer to that
02:11:54.800 --> 02:11:56.510
in the first day or the first four days
02:11:56.510 --> 02:11:57.520
of the first five days.
02:11:57.520 --> 02:12:01.733
There's sort of this onBoarding experience of a teacher.
02:12:03.300 --> 02:12:05.790
It's just an initial shock is what it is
02:12:05.790 --> 02:12:09.210
in terms of the numbers of kids you have, regardless of how,
02:12:09.210 --> 02:12:11.070
how much preparation than you may have had.
02:12:11.070 --> 02:12:14.010
It's just that the first day is a tough one.
02:12:14.010 --> 02:12:16.440
I first went through an alternative certification program
02:12:16.440 --> 02:12:18.557
for the Dallas, the school district.
02:12:18.557 --> 02:12:21.310
It was a summer program and then boom,
02:12:21.310 --> 02:12:24.390
in a portable classroom at a elementary school in Dallas
02:12:24.390 --> 02:12:26.844
ISD, a fifth grade classroom,
02:12:26.844 --> 02:12:31.844
diverse group of ESL students and go at it.
02:12:31.910 --> 02:12:33.937
And it was actually an interesting experience.
02:12:33.937 --> 02:12:37.452
It was a very dark room that I kind of portable room
02:12:37.452 --> 02:12:38.723
that I went into.
02:12:39.900 --> 02:12:42.440
And I'm not shameful to admit that.
02:12:42.440 --> 02:12:44.340
I think I cried at the end of the day,
02:12:45.310 --> 02:12:47.310
thinking that perhaps this was not the right thing
02:12:47.310 --> 02:12:48.870
that I needed to do.
02:12:48.870 --> 02:12:51.850
And lo and behold, thanks to all of that experience.
02:12:51.850 --> 02:12:53.510
I'm sitting here today.
02:12:53.510 --> 02:12:54.740
I don't know why, but maybe it's the punishment phase
02:12:54.740 --> 02:12:55.650
of all of that.
02:12:56.980 --> 02:12:59.940
I do think that when we, when I talk with superintendents
02:12:59.940 --> 02:13:01.770
nearby our school district and others,
02:13:01.770 --> 02:13:04.830
we've been very fortunate to see students,
02:13:04.830 --> 02:13:07.290
teachers and teacher candidates who've gone through
02:13:07.290 --> 02:13:10.590
this program late and by just by windfall,
02:13:10.590 --> 02:13:12.490
our school district had to hire a couple of folks,
02:13:12.490 --> 02:13:15.140
even though we're not in the pilot project that we've been
02:13:15.140 --> 02:13:16.260
able to garner a good one
02:13:16.260 --> 02:13:17.930
or two few teachers here and there.
02:13:17.930 --> 02:13:20.230
And let me tell you the difference has been extremely great
02:13:20.230 --> 02:13:22.430
in the fact that going back to your question, Mr. Coleman,
02:13:22.430 --> 02:13:25.570
about this notion of their readiness
02:13:25.570 --> 02:13:27.530
from a practitioner sense of point of view,
02:13:27.530 --> 02:13:31.000
rather than from a sense of like a academic view
02:13:31.000 --> 02:13:33.320
of what teaching is about.
02:13:33.320 --> 02:13:35.080
And I think to that degree, in some sense,
02:13:35.080 --> 02:13:37.510
the world benefit by actually looking at a copy
02:13:37.510 --> 02:13:41.207
of the PVR tests, the multiple choice tests,
02:13:41.207 --> 02:13:44.240
and perhaps the framework that's involved with the edTPA
02:13:44.240 --> 02:13:45.300
as well too.
02:13:45.300 --> 02:13:47.460
And it certainly, when the Commissioner talks
02:13:47.460 --> 02:13:49.570
about the portfolio assessment,
02:13:49.570 --> 02:13:51.349
it talks about all of those things.
02:13:51.349 --> 02:13:52.182
I think that's a very important thing.
02:13:52.182 --> 02:13:56.248
We ask our kids to perhaps produce those things
02:13:56.248 --> 02:13:59.250
as they applied towards colleges and careers
02:13:59.250 --> 02:14:00.923
and so forth and so on.
02:14:00.923 --> 02:14:04.050
And I think that's an important thing to really identify.
02:14:04.050 --> 02:14:07.080
And once again, the onBoarding of hop every school
02:14:07.080 --> 02:14:09.930
district conduct itself to onBoard the teachers
02:14:09.930 --> 02:14:13.460
from a cultural sense to welcome them
02:14:13.460 --> 02:14:16.320
is a district function in my personal opinion,
02:14:16.320 --> 02:14:19.590
in every school district has a culture of its own,
02:14:19.590 --> 02:14:22.330
but preparation leading towards in terms of practitioner
02:14:22.330 --> 02:14:24.710
sense of getting, understanding how it feels
02:14:24.710 --> 02:14:26.070
to be a teacher.
02:14:26.070 --> 02:14:28.451
But remember that from the first day,
02:14:28.451 --> 02:14:30.230
the struggle is where is the bathroom?
02:14:30.230 --> 02:14:31.990
Where do I go get copies?
02:14:31.990 --> 02:14:34.990
Who do I call about a substitute and so forth and so on.
02:14:34.990 --> 02:14:37.430
Those are all district functions that unfortunately
02:14:37.430 --> 02:14:40.760
is not yet completely there in some sense.
02:14:40.760 --> 02:14:43.912
So once again, though, from a teaching perspective,
02:14:43.912 --> 02:14:46.830
that needs to be really, really be important.
02:14:46.830 --> 02:14:50.330
And as a school district and many other school districts,
02:14:50.330 --> 02:14:51.750
as you saw the data earlier,
02:14:51.750 --> 02:14:55.460
we're looking at catching things up as quickly as possible.
02:14:55.460 --> 02:14:57.090
I mean, we're talking one bad teacher,
02:14:57.090 --> 02:14:59.850
two years of good teachers needed consecutively
02:14:59.850 --> 02:15:02.310
in order to recover some loss with that one bad teacher.
02:15:02.310 --> 02:15:05.210
And that's kind of, I think what the research says.
02:15:05.210 --> 02:15:07.350
So the better prepared teachers,
02:15:07.350 --> 02:15:09.850
certainly what we see I think with this program.
02:15:09.850 --> 02:15:11.898
And certainly there's unforeseen,
02:15:11.898 --> 02:15:14.570
more information we may need to look at,
02:15:14.570 --> 02:15:18.000
but I'm certainly positive about the direction
02:15:18.000 --> 02:15:19.140
that this is going to go.
02:15:19.140 --> 02:15:21.634
And I hope the Board will see that as well too.
02:15:21.634 --> 02:15:24.200
But so to that, a request that maybe a copy of the PPR,
02:15:24.200 --> 02:15:25.140
just for me, just kind of,
02:15:25.140 --> 02:15:26.580
I haven't taken thaT-TESS in a long time.
02:15:26.580 --> 02:15:31.580
So I'll remember it and certainly the ATP as well, too,
02:15:32.070 --> 02:15:34.120
if there is such thing for me to look at,
02:15:35.030 --> 02:15:39.430
I will tell you that the OPDAS is what our evaluation
02:15:39.430 --> 02:15:42.853
system was teachers, and we transitioned to T-TESS.
02:15:43.687 --> 02:15:47.360
I will tell you that when majority of the evaluation
02:15:47.360 --> 02:15:50.752
in PDAS was 92%, 91% where all teachers were proficient
02:15:50.752 --> 02:15:54.510
and then you have schools that are struggling,
02:15:54.510 --> 02:15:56.168
it just didn't make sense.
02:15:56.168 --> 02:15:57.970
Or you have a group of teachers,
02:15:57.970 --> 02:16:01.160
all of them were talking overwhelmingly at the highest
02:16:01.160 --> 02:16:04.160
performance level, but not the kids.
02:16:04.160 --> 02:16:06.280
I mean, at some point when you talk about the kids,
02:16:06.280 --> 02:16:07.780
at some point here.
02:16:07.780 --> 02:16:10.450
So I think going think about from that perspective,
02:16:10.450 --> 02:16:13.450
I think we need to make a pivotal change
02:16:13.450 --> 02:16:15.080
in terms of what we need to do.
02:16:15.080 --> 02:16:16.750
And certainly I hope that this is something that the Board
02:16:16.750 --> 02:16:19.043
will consider going forward, thank you.
02:16:20.590 --> 02:16:23.320
Yes, Courtney, Ms. McDonald.
02:16:23.320 --> 02:16:25.990
Well, I appreciate those comments and I think what you've
02:16:25.990 --> 02:16:28.560
highlighted with the PDAS was one of my frustrations
02:16:28.560 --> 02:16:30.540
that I've had the frustration with the PPR.
02:16:30.540 --> 02:16:33.820
And so I think that's kind of what I was challenging when
02:16:33.820 --> 02:16:36.558
looking at the data with Dr. Van (indistinct).
02:16:36.558 --> 02:16:39.800
I still have some curiosities about that,
02:16:39.800 --> 02:16:41.770
but I also just kind of wanted to clarify Dr. Gavin,
02:16:41.770 --> 02:16:43.060
like to your questions,
02:16:43.060 --> 02:16:45.161
and I'm glad you're asking those questions,
02:16:45.161 --> 02:16:46.530
because that way you can get the information you need.
02:16:46.530 --> 02:16:49.700
I joined the Board three years ago and this was already
02:16:49.700 --> 02:16:52.730
in the works, and then we're talking about four more years.
02:16:52.730 --> 02:16:54.230
So this isn't quick,
02:16:54.230 --> 02:16:56.080
this has actually been a very long process,
02:16:56.080 --> 02:16:59.130
and we've all come in somewhere in the middle of that
02:16:59.130 --> 02:17:02.010
process, and so like, if you need to get like dialed,
02:17:02.010 --> 02:17:05.303
have a conversations with staff to like catch up,
02:17:05.303 --> 02:17:08.210
I think that would be helpful and meaningful,
02:17:08.210 --> 02:17:13.210
but this has been a ongoing timeline that I think
02:17:13.840 --> 02:17:17.000
because we've had so much Board transition recently,
02:17:17.000 --> 02:17:19.660
some of that may be historical context isn't there,
02:17:19.660 --> 02:17:23.050
but I guess I wanted to make sure that my fellow Board
02:17:23.050 --> 02:17:25.910
members know that this has been a really thoughtful,
02:17:25.910 --> 02:17:29.440
ongoing long process, I mean, from like eight years,
02:17:29.440 --> 02:17:33.340
school years from 18 to 25,
02:17:33.340 --> 02:17:36.320
so anyways, I just kind of wanted to give
02:17:36.320 --> 02:17:37.703
a little perspective there.
02:17:39.205 --> 02:17:40.473
Yes, Mr. Gore.
02:17:41.750 --> 02:17:44.420
With the caveat a non-educator B,
02:17:44.420 --> 02:17:46.192
this is my second meeting.
02:17:46.192 --> 02:17:47.370
And so I haven't had the benefit of all of this,
02:17:47.370 --> 02:17:50.702
but in the context of some of the information presented
02:17:50.702 --> 02:17:53.630
here, particularly the PPR,
02:17:53.630 --> 02:17:58.630
perhaps being it's an evaluation mechanism that doesn't
02:17:58.630 --> 02:18:01.870
evaluate whether or not somebody has been taught
02:18:01.870 --> 02:18:05.770
how to teach, but there's some data that suggests
02:18:05.770 --> 02:18:09.440
it's a pretty good addition of whether somebody ultimately
02:18:09.440 --> 02:18:12.000
can be and will be a good teacher
02:18:12.000 --> 02:18:16.790
to that end I'm hesitant to endorse the idea
02:18:16.790 --> 02:18:18.884
of totally phasing PPR out, because if we,
02:18:18.884 --> 02:18:22.350
at some point decide edTPA is not the means
02:18:22.350 --> 02:18:24.880
by which we ought to train our teachers.
02:18:24.880 --> 02:18:27.580
I think there's some valuable legacy data
02:18:27.580 --> 02:18:29.080
that we would have lost.
02:18:29.080 --> 02:18:32.450
Secondly, your point in under somebody,
02:18:32.450 --> 02:18:37.450
so is the types of pilot data okay.
02:18:37.760 --> 02:18:39.430
No options have been presented that are ready
02:18:39.430 --> 02:18:42.140
for implementation, Board may consider additional app
02:18:42.140 --> 02:18:45.730
options at any time in Board, may codified in rule a process
02:18:45.730 --> 02:18:46.980
to establish criteria.
02:18:46.980 --> 02:18:48.470
All of which are true.
02:18:48.470 --> 02:18:50.940
My sense is from the presentation day,
02:18:50.940 --> 02:18:55.260
there are some efforts that are not ready perhaps,
02:18:55.260 --> 02:18:58.400
but that a lot of progress been being made in.
02:18:58.400 --> 02:19:02.350
And I would like to propose or consider are there EPP
02:19:02.350 --> 02:19:06.803
programs that would pilot, continue to develop,
02:19:08.241 --> 02:19:12.430
and further pilot something other than that edTPA
02:19:12.430 --> 02:19:14.413
and have that be an option as well.
02:19:16.830 --> 02:19:20.343
Mr. Coleman, I agree with Mr. Gore.
02:19:22.660 --> 02:19:23.820
I agree with Mr. Gore.
02:19:23.820 --> 02:19:25.520
That's where my head is right now.
02:19:26.920 --> 02:19:29.860
If we're serious about saying, first of all,
02:19:29.860 --> 02:19:32.930
fantastic work on edTPA and everything we're going
02:19:32.930 --> 02:19:34.030
and all that direction.
02:19:34.030 --> 02:19:38.640
But I also liked the idea that, that we take seriously,
02:19:38.640 --> 02:19:42.490
the idea that an alternative could also be developed
02:19:43.561 --> 02:19:46.070
and that we don't necessarily have to have
02:19:46.070 --> 02:19:47.783
all of our money in one horse.
02:19:48.950 --> 02:19:50.400
Even though it's been awhile.
02:19:54.098 --> 02:19:56.770
Dr. Kelly, if I may, I'm just to,
02:19:56.770 --> 02:19:59.040
so that I know what to bring back for you all in terms
02:19:59.040 --> 02:20:00.747
of rule text in February.
02:20:00.747 --> 02:20:05.747
So to clarify, would that be staff bringing forward
02:20:05.750 --> 02:20:08.170
along with implementation of edTPA,
02:20:08.170 --> 02:20:11.520
a process to vet and approve additional performance
02:20:11.520 --> 02:20:14.150
assessments, I'm curious what I may be hearing,
02:20:14.150 --> 02:20:16.870
and I just want to make sure I'm clarifying is a process
02:20:16.870 --> 02:20:20.370
by which you would formally pilot another option.
02:20:20.370 --> 02:20:23.610
If it met a certain set of criteria that you would establish
02:20:23.610 --> 02:20:26.520
similar to criteria that you all put potentially
02:20:26.520 --> 02:20:28.400
the criteria that you already established
02:20:28.400 --> 02:20:31.960
in the field to Ms. McDonalds point back in 2019,
02:20:31.960 --> 02:20:34.970
when the concept of a parallel pilot was originally
02:20:34.970 --> 02:20:38.330
proposed, there was criteria out in the field,
02:20:38.330 --> 02:20:41.080
no programs ultimately stepped forward to run a parallel
02:20:41.080 --> 02:20:42.750
pilot at that point.
02:20:42.750 --> 02:20:45.360
But am I hearing potentially an opportunity to codify
02:20:45.360 --> 02:20:48.070
some of those standards for something like a pilot
02:20:48.070 --> 02:20:49.440
in the future?
02:20:49.440 --> 02:20:51.010
Just for myself, I'd say yes,
02:20:51.010 --> 02:20:56.010
but I would say within those things that you develop build
02:20:56.011 --> 02:20:59.220
in flexibility, people may be looking at this differently
02:20:59.220 --> 02:21:03.780
than, I read through the specs that we initially offered,
02:21:03.780 --> 02:21:07.310
and those were extremely specific and detailed and long.
02:21:07.310 --> 02:21:09.940
And there may be other ways to skin that cat that we just
02:21:09.940 --> 02:21:12.550
allow some flexibility, like the good work
02:21:12.550 --> 02:21:17.550
of the speakers we had today from Sam Houston State.
02:21:17.640 --> 02:21:20.850
So just a little flexibility, but yes,
02:21:20.850 --> 02:21:24.060
quantifying that and moving on.
02:21:24.060 --> 02:21:27.037
That's my thoughts for what it's worth, oh, sway.
02:21:30.460 --> 02:21:33.730
Yes, I was wondering because that's what I was thinking
02:21:33.730 --> 02:21:38.730
about, also, whether it's feasible to have two parallel
02:21:39.510 --> 02:21:43.363
programs, we already, this morning,
02:21:44.430 --> 02:21:47.703
we mentioned that we have a rigorous process to allow,
02:21:47.703 --> 02:21:51.520
EPP problems to certify them.
02:21:51.520 --> 02:21:54.920
And we went through that this morning with ILT Texas.
02:21:54.920 --> 02:21:58.130
So, and there's no consequential implementation
02:21:58.130 --> 02:22:00.970
or to 2023, 2024 anyways.
02:22:00.970 --> 02:22:05.687
So I was thinking whether we allow T-TESS, edTPA,
02:22:07.075 --> 02:22:12.075
we give discretion to EPPs whether to pick one or the other
02:22:13.380 --> 02:22:17.190
and then compare the results of those two programs.
02:22:17.190 --> 02:22:20.190
But I don't know if it is feasible to see, okay,
02:22:20.190 --> 02:22:22.910
these are the teachers that went through T-TESS,
02:22:22.910 --> 02:22:25.040
teachers that went through edTPA
02:22:25.040 --> 02:22:29.540
and then compare achievement results.
02:22:29.540 --> 02:22:32.430
I don't know how about the visibility of that.
02:22:32.430 --> 02:22:37.430
What I know for sure is that like Dr. Kim was saying
02:22:39.400 --> 02:22:44.400
earlier, PPR is a test, McDonald's was saying the same thing
02:22:46.640 --> 02:22:50.240
earlier also where most of the teachers are passing
02:22:50.240 --> 02:22:54.020
reminds me of Alice IZ back in, before we implemented
02:22:54.020 --> 02:22:55.820
the teacher excellence initiative,
02:22:55.820 --> 02:22:59.840
where most of us were proficient teachers,
02:22:59.840 --> 02:23:01.640
both schools were failing.
02:23:01.640 --> 02:23:05.040
And without us says, this says, this is not possible.
02:23:05.040 --> 02:23:08.578
How come you have 90, 95% of your teachers proficient,
02:23:08.578 --> 02:23:11.430
and a bunch of schools are failing.
02:23:11.430 --> 02:23:15.830
And we decided to go with the t-shirt excellence initiative.
02:23:15.830 --> 02:23:20.830
So PPR looks like we have over 90% of teacher passing
02:23:21.850 --> 02:23:24.976
successful, And then the Commissioner came here
02:23:24.976 --> 02:23:27.301
and this morning, and he presented some information
02:23:27.301 --> 02:23:28.390
that we're failing our students.
02:23:28.390 --> 02:23:32.900
That, I mean, that's a fact, that's what the data says.
02:23:32.900 --> 02:23:36.660
So while we know is that we have to change what we're doing
02:23:36.660 --> 02:23:40.090
right now, but I don't know if it is feasible.
02:23:40.090 --> 02:23:43.253
That's my question to wrong, two things at the same time.
02:23:44.739 --> 02:23:47.292
Thank you, John.
02:23:47.292 --> 02:23:50.854
So I do think we have a history at TEA also
02:23:50.854 --> 02:23:55.854
of, and the legislature shared this with us
02:23:57.480 --> 02:23:59.350
and directed us to do this as well,
02:23:59.350 --> 02:24:02.570
which is to create local options and local pathways
02:24:03.515 --> 02:24:07.940
and set up TEA less on the prescribing exactly what it is,
02:24:07.940 --> 02:24:12.050
but more vetting whether or not it meets a set of criteria
02:24:12.050 --> 02:24:17.050
or in is actually predicting what you want it to predict
02:24:17.420 --> 02:24:19.810
and as valid and reliable as an assessment.
02:24:19.810 --> 02:24:22.895
So we have that with our teacher incentive allotment.
02:24:22.895 --> 02:24:24.430
We also have it with the accountability system
02:24:24.430 --> 02:24:27.000
on allowing for local accountability systems.
02:24:27.000 --> 02:24:29.450
So I think it's possible that we could also,
02:24:29.450 --> 02:24:32.750
if it's the will of the Board to bring forward
02:24:32.750 --> 02:24:34.700
some of the examples of other places
02:24:34.700 --> 02:24:39.700
where we have set criteria and vetted local pathways
02:24:39.750 --> 02:24:43.070
and assessments, so that we aren't just allowing
02:24:43.070 --> 02:24:46.380
total flexibility, but we are setting criteria
02:24:46.380 --> 02:24:50.300
and allowing less about prescribing the particular things
02:24:50.300 --> 02:24:52.860
in the system and more the outcomes that we're trying
02:24:52.860 --> 02:24:56.063
to get to with the assessment that we said.
02:25:01.450 --> 02:25:03.063
Hold on, Dr. B. yes.
02:25:05.657 --> 02:25:07.933
Just to add an opinion, everybody's.
02:25:11.780 --> 02:25:16.780
Sometimes in education, we are criticized for getting
02:25:17.430 --> 02:25:20.820
into what you can call analysis paralysis, right?
02:25:20.820 --> 02:25:22.853
And we need to analyze things to death.
02:25:22.853 --> 02:25:26.410
And, and by way of explanation, this is my third career.
02:25:26.410 --> 02:25:28.610
So first career in the military,
02:25:28.610 --> 02:25:32.168
which people typically associate decisiveness,
02:25:32.168 --> 02:25:36.183
strategy, execute the strategy, go for it.
02:25:37.250 --> 02:25:41.360
Okay, that might be more true in certain venues
02:25:41.360 --> 02:25:44.250
in the military, especially in combat situation,
02:25:44.250 --> 02:25:46.550
then it was business and business,
02:25:46.550 --> 02:25:50.595
we normally entertained proposals from companies
02:25:50.595 --> 02:25:55.595
to give us things and processes and RFPs and RFQs.
02:25:56.280 --> 02:25:58.640
And we would go with the strongest horse
02:25:58.640 --> 02:26:03.180
that we felt that appropriate to do so,
02:26:03.180 --> 02:26:08.100
and here in education we've got our big boss saying,
02:26:08.100 --> 02:26:12.798
hey, you really need to think boldly,
02:26:12.798 --> 02:26:16.078
you gotta be aggressive and bold about this,
02:26:16.078 --> 02:26:21.078
but I'm troubled because I sense that,
02:26:21.337 --> 02:26:25.123
there's a good degree of possible waffling.
02:26:26.460 --> 02:26:29.590
And I think that's, I don't know, maybe it's warranted,
02:26:29.590 --> 02:26:30.423
maybe it isn't,
02:26:31.369 --> 02:26:35.305
but to get to the best result and not make a mistake where,
02:26:35.305 --> 02:26:40.143
you would have to live with that mistake for several years,
02:26:41.560 --> 02:26:46.560
I understood that we started a three-year program here with
02:26:47.330 --> 02:26:51.410
edTPA and the horses out of the gate and running around
02:26:51.410 --> 02:26:54.503
this track about 90 times already.
02:26:55.570 --> 02:27:00.220
So we're not at the beginning of this process,
02:27:00.220 --> 02:27:01.923
we're at the end of the pilot.
02:27:03.040 --> 02:27:06.450
And if we were to receive data that says,
02:27:06.450 --> 02:27:07.770
here's the results of the pilot.
02:27:07.770 --> 02:27:10.110
And I saw a little bit of that data and the presentation.
02:27:10.110 --> 02:27:10.943
Thank you then.
02:27:12.030 --> 02:27:17.030
And the results are significantly better than the status quo
02:27:17.173 --> 02:27:20.140
then, should we really be quibbling about going back
02:27:20.140 --> 02:27:23.890
and looking at T-TESS T-CAR, T whatever,
02:27:23.890 --> 02:27:28.370
or any other solution other than the one that you charted
02:27:28.370 --> 02:27:31.460
and that wasn't here at the time that you charted.
02:27:31.460 --> 02:27:36.460
And now we're in the seats where we have to decide on this.
02:27:37.420 --> 02:27:41.370
So I do not favor anything other than a bold,
02:27:41.370 --> 02:27:45.320
aggressive approach, and I'm going through the national
02:27:45.320 --> 02:27:46.940
Board deal right now.
02:27:46.940 --> 02:27:49.490
I'm going through the national Board certification.
02:27:49.490 --> 02:27:52.336
It's Stanford all the way, it's Stanford edTPA,
02:27:52.336 --> 02:27:55.006
every step of the way.
02:27:55.006 --> 02:27:59.520
And I like it, I think it's great.
02:27:59.520 --> 02:28:02.963
I took the PPR, it was like falling off a log.
02:28:06.160 --> 02:28:10.430
The PPR, if you're a good multiple choice test taker,
02:28:10.430 --> 02:28:13.710
and you do some degree of burning the midnight oil
02:28:13.710 --> 02:28:15.898
on them for a couple of days,
02:28:15.898 --> 02:28:19.760
you're gonna sail through the PPR really.
02:28:19.760 --> 02:28:22.150
It's not a good measure.
02:28:22.150 --> 02:28:26.370
So we don't say, well, if we bump it up to 250,
02:28:26.370 --> 02:28:27.490
boy, that's going to be great.
02:28:27.490 --> 02:28:30.091
It's going to be a panacea and a, oh,
02:28:30.091 --> 02:28:32.130
come constructed response.
02:28:32.130 --> 02:28:35.600
You're going to answer a question with a nice paragraph.
02:28:35.600 --> 02:28:37.730
I don't think that's bold enough.
02:28:37.730 --> 02:28:41.590
I really don't, so that's my two cents.
02:28:41.590 --> 02:28:42.640
I'm sticking with it.
02:28:45.040 --> 02:28:48.760
Fair enough, but I think that the proposal
02:28:48.760 --> 02:28:51.513
we've heard tonight is not just the PPR ,
02:28:51.513 --> 02:28:54.740
it's using T-TESS to a significant degree
02:28:54.740 --> 02:28:58.677
as an alternative to edTPA, yes, Commissioner.
02:29:01.550 --> 02:29:03.877
Mr. Chair, just a point of process.
02:29:03.877 --> 02:29:07.640
And perhaps, if this discussion in that,
02:29:07.640 --> 02:29:09.973
I guess the next meeting will be in February,
02:29:10.860 --> 02:29:15.770
and this is a prolonged discussion about potential options
02:29:15.770 --> 02:29:20.027
that perhaps your addressing and deputy Commissioner
02:29:20.027 --> 02:29:22.772
ulcer was mentioning as well too.
02:29:22.772 --> 02:29:25.011
I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea
02:29:25.011 --> 02:29:26.142
to have some options.
02:29:26.142 --> 02:29:27.200
We certainly have that with TIA,
02:29:27.200 --> 02:29:30.582
as well as some of the other things that's recently rolled
02:29:30.582 --> 02:29:32.560
out, I do think there are some tenants though that needs
02:29:32.560 --> 02:29:35.410
to be sort of locked in to make sure that there
02:29:35.410 --> 02:29:37.190
is consistency though.
02:29:37.190 --> 02:29:41.310
So for example, if a district is decided to go to different
02:29:41.310 --> 02:29:43.490
routes, there's gotta be some type of an EPP district
02:29:43.490 --> 02:29:46.910
partnership to make sure that that is what they're gonna do,
02:29:46.910 --> 02:29:50.040
where else does Tacoma LIC is going to use edTPA.
02:29:50.040 --> 02:29:54.850
So we can just have a, I dunno, can be just wilding goose,
02:29:54.850 --> 02:29:58.100
chasing down these things and us to figure out which program
02:29:58.100 --> 02:29:59.630
is which, and so forth and so on.
02:29:59.630 --> 02:30:02.730
I think that might be a little bit too, too much there.
02:30:02.730 --> 02:30:03.820
So I think in some sense,
02:30:03.820 --> 02:30:05.740
if we're going to have that discussion,
02:30:05.740 --> 02:30:08.030
I'm wondering what the agenda in February,
02:30:08.030 --> 02:30:12.503
it might be better to have maybe a day before workshop
02:30:12.503 --> 02:30:15.190
so that it's not all protract a long discussion
02:30:15.190 --> 02:30:17.240
on that February day,
02:30:17.240 --> 02:30:18.890
so that we're not sitting here at five O'clock
02:30:18.890 --> 02:30:21.310
trying to mentally trying to figure this out
02:30:21.310 --> 02:30:23.540
at some point, I don't know what's on the docket there.
02:30:23.540 --> 02:30:25.619
So it's just my suggestion.
02:30:25.619 --> 02:30:28.081
I don't know, I know everybody's schedule is tough,
02:30:28.081 --> 02:30:30.870
but this is a bold action that we need to do then
02:30:30.870 --> 02:30:34.010
certainly additional time might be needed for that one item
02:30:34.010 --> 02:30:36.050
perhaps in that regard.
02:30:36.050 --> 02:30:38.519
Well, I think Emily gonna make a comment,
02:30:38.519 --> 02:30:39.380
so let me go there first.
02:30:39.380 --> 02:30:42.760
Yes, if I can clarify what's on the table right now,
02:30:42.760 --> 02:30:46.430
the option that was presented both at IPAC and today,
02:30:46.430 --> 02:30:50.580
the presented alongside edTPA was the idea of using
02:30:50.580 --> 02:30:53.320
T-TESS in combination with a portfolio,
02:30:53.320 --> 02:30:56.040
the portfolio would be locally scored and assessed
02:30:56.040 --> 02:30:58.018
at the EPP level.
02:30:58.018 --> 02:31:03.018
And that package along with raising the cut score,
02:31:03.520 --> 02:31:05.730
considering raising the cut score on PPR,
02:31:05.730 --> 02:31:08.378
that's the alternative. That's been presented,
02:31:08.378 --> 02:31:11.280
a couple of things to consider there.
02:31:11.280 --> 02:31:13.270
That package is not ready to be unrolled.
02:31:13.270 --> 02:31:15.690
That is, we don't have the reliability results.
02:31:15.690 --> 02:31:18.570
We don't have the way it would scale or be implemented
02:31:18.570 --> 02:31:20.410
that has not been completed.
02:31:20.410 --> 02:31:22.670
And the modeling for what would happen with PPR.
02:31:22.670 --> 02:31:25.601
If we raise the cut score, indicates an increase
02:31:25.601 --> 02:31:29.890
in the performance gap between demographic groups,
02:31:29.890 --> 02:31:31.970
not to mention the other issues with PPR
02:31:31.970 --> 02:31:32.950
that had been raised.
02:31:32.950 --> 02:31:36.150
So there are things that would have to be figured out
02:31:36.150 --> 02:31:39.175
and understood and deeply explored for that option
02:31:39.175 --> 02:31:40.980
to move forward.
02:31:40.980 --> 02:31:43.490
What I believe Ms. McLaughlin's presented today
02:31:43.490 --> 02:31:46.130
is that we're not intending to shut the door
02:31:46.130 --> 02:31:49.450
on the exploration of that suite of options,
02:31:49.450 --> 02:31:52.658
but what's before the Board now is the pilot is wrapping up
02:31:52.658 --> 02:31:55.550
and we need to make a decision about moving forward
02:31:55.550 --> 02:31:58.037
with edTPA is consequential implementation
02:31:58.037 --> 02:32:01.200
and a phased in three-year approach.
02:32:01.200 --> 02:32:04.030
These two things can happen simultaneously.
02:32:04.030 --> 02:32:05.860
We can keep the door open,
02:32:05.860 --> 02:32:09.330
codify a way the Board can consider the alternate option
02:32:09.330 --> 02:32:11.520
that's been presented and others.
02:32:11.520 --> 02:32:13.870
We can codify that and give the Board the power
02:32:13.870 --> 02:32:18.039
and the structure with which to consider other options.
02:32:18.039 --> 02:32:21.880
We can do that, but we also have to make a determination
02:32:21.880 --> 02:32:24.260
about whether we are moving forward with consequential
02:32:24.260 --> 02:32:28.460
implementation of edTPA, after the pilot,
02:32:28.460 --> 02:32:30.260
where we are in the pilot today,
02:32:30.260 --> 02:32:32.640
with the data that's been presented and the implementation
02:32:32.640 --> 02:32:34.340
plan that's been drafted.
02:32:34.340 --> 02:32:35.880
So what the plan is right now,
02:32:35.880 --> 02:32:38.890
based on what you see on this slide is for staff to take
02:32:38.890 --> 02:32:41.970
the recommendations that they've heard from the Board today.
02:32:41.970 --> 02:32:43.940
And the questions that they've heard from the Board today,
02:32:43.940 --> 02:32:47.180
come back with answers to those questions and draft rule
02:32:47.180 --> 02:32:51.246
techs for moving forward from pilot to policy with edTPA,
02:32:51.246 --> 02:32:54.220
number one, and to come forward with,
02:32:54.220 --> 02:32:56.580
what would it look like to consider the option you were
02:32:56.580 --> 02:32:59.430
presented today, what would need to be in place,
02:32:59.430 --> 02:33:02.220
what would need to be true for you to consider
02:33:02.220 --> 02:33:05.280
all other alternates as well?
02:33:05.280 --> 02:33:06.600
So that just to be very clear,
02:33:06.600 --> 02:33:09.363
that's kind of where we are in this moment.
02:33:11.160 --> 02:33:11.993
Jean.
02:33:14.437 --> 02:33:18.330
If our job is to monitor the quality of the teachers
02:33:18.330 --> 02:33:20.640
that come forward and our job is to make sure
02:33:20.640 --> 02:33:22.260
they are better prepared,
02:33:22.260 --> 02:33:26.723
that makes me concerned of moving the,
02:33:28.030 --> 02:33:30.130
that it would be locally scored.
02:33:30.130 --> 02:33:33.650
And so there are lots of things about those ideas
02:33:33.650 --> 02:33:34.930
that I really liked,
02:33:34.930 --> 02:33:39.840
but the idea that all that with the consistency
02:33:39.840 --> 02:33:43.100
always worries me that if we have things across
02:33:43.100 --> 02:33:47.550
the whole state and I agree that maybe they could be like,
02:33:47.550 --> 02:33:50.100
the TIA may be, it can be a handful,
02:33:50.100 --> 02:33:52.130
but at this point there's not,
02:33:52.130 --> 02:33:54.580
that's not a system right this minute.
02:33:54.580 --> 02:33:57.950
And so if our job is to make sure that we're monitoring
02:33:57.950 --> 02:34:02.950
the quality, then giving local control to the assessment
02:34:03.310 --> 02:34:06.700
is a concern for me and then the consistency.
02:34:06.700 --> 02:34:10.210
And then I do like the idea of leaving the door open
02:34:10.210 --> 02:34:14.490
for additional programs to come forth when they are ready.
02:34:14.490 --> 02:34:18.390
Jean, I felt like the presentation made there essentially
02:34:18.390 --> 02:34:21.620
conceited that they were not ready to do anything
02:34:21.620 --> 02:34:24.439
other than, but they left that they themselves left
02:34:24.439 --> 02:34:27.780
that door open as to whether or not that was going to have
02:34:27.780 --> 02:34:29.900
some level of control above the EPPs.
02:34:29.900 --> 02:34:31.900
I mean, I share what what's been expressed to you.
02:34:31.900 --> 02:34:36.900
You don't want people who are judged by the test
02:34:37.060 --> 02:34:41.580
to be the ones that are evaluating and so on.
02:34:41.580 --> 02:34:43.352
So I see that point,
02:34:43.352 --> 02:34:45.640
but I think what we're all expressing is this,
02:34:45.640 --> 02:34:48.990
that the alternative is not well formed yet,
02:34:48.990 --> 02:34:50.460
but I don't want to give up on it.
02:34:50.460 --> 02:34:53.766
That's my position there.
02:34:53.766 --> 02:34:56.840
Superintendent Kim, I agree with about once a year,
02:34:56.840 --> 02:35:00.010
we usually have a workshop sort of maybe the day before
02:35:00.010 --> 02:35:02.260
where we look at some issue in greater length
02:35:02.260 --> 02:35:06.670
so that we don't have to do it at five 30 in the afternoon
02:35:06.670 --> 02:35:07.530
on the day.
02:35:07.530 --> 02:35:10.743
So I'll talk with with our TEA staff and see if maybe
02:35:10.743 --> 02:35:14.763
that's a possibility for the February meeting.
02:35:16.400 --> 02:35:19.050
I think everybody should be okay with that hopefully.
02:35:20.380 --> 02:35:23.010
All right, well, let's wrap this up in a few minutes.
02:35:23.010 --> 02:35:26.083
So one more go around Ms. McDonalds.
02:35:27.300 --> 02:35:29.770
So I had a very similar kind of concern in question.
02:35:29.770 --> 02:35:31.720
So just like the TEA staff.
02:35:31.720 --> 02:35:33.390
So we've been working those Board,
02:35:33.390 --> 02:35:35.450
it's been working for, I guess, almost 13 years
02:35:35.450 --> 02:35:37.920
on the edprep accountability system,
02:35:37.920 --> 02:35:39.520
and getting that student growth piece
02:35:39.520 --> 02:35:41.660
in there is like so vital to that.
02:35:41.660 --> 02:35:45.271
If we already have different student accountability models.
02:35:45.271 --> 02:35:48.890
And now we're talking about having multiple teacher
02:35:49.840 --> 02:35:52.400
certification assessment models,
02:35:52.400 --> 02:35:56.040
how feasible I assume difficult,
02:35:56.040 --> 02:36:00.006
would it be an could TEA do that and linking all of those
02:36:00.006 --> 02:36:04.880
together to have a cohesive, reliable accountability measure
02:36:04.880 --> 02:36:07.950
for at prep programs, which is something that's a huge
02:36:07.950 --> 02:36:09.053
priority to me.
02:36:10.098 --> 02:36:12.015
Okay, Dr. Gabon, yes.
02:36:14.138 --> 02:36:16.438
Okay, well, hopefully this is in conclusion,
02:36:17.720 --> 02:36:21.580
I'm speaking from the perspective of the actual
02:36:21.580 --> 02:36:24.860
implementation, because I think you've brought up a good
02:36:24.860 --> 02:36:28.180
point that you all, several of us are new.
02:36:28.180 --> 02:36:32.003
You all had discussed this in the past prior to us joining.
02:36:32.930 --> 02:36:36.649
And my reflective question to everyone is to please keep
02:36:36.649 --> 02:36:41.649
in mind that whatever is decided if the decision-making
02:36:42.100 --> 02:36:44.433
has been this complex,
02:36:45.310 --> 02:36:49.640
can you imagine from a university or alternative
02:36:49.640 --> 02:36:54.573
perspective, the challenges of the implementation,
02:36:56.047 --> 02:37:00.850
if it has taken us this long as a state to determine
02:37:01.940 --> 02:37:03.780
how we move forward,
02:37:03.780 --> 02:37:08.350
that to keep in mind in the timeline that the implementation
02:37:08.350 --> 02:37:13.260
is the actual reality that has directly impacts
02:37:13.260 --> 02:37:15.730
the candidates and the programs,
02:37:15.730 --> 02:37:18.810
and if it impacts the candidates,
02:37:18.810 --> 02:37:22.093
whether it's cost or effort or time,
02:37:25.190 --> 02:37:28.370
it's the implementation that we're going to have to really
02:37:28.370 --> 02:37:32.430
the timeline for the implementation of whatever is decided,
02:37:32.430 --> 02:37:36.280
because how much time we've all invested in this,
02:37:36.280 --> 02:37:38.740
just to make the decision,
02:37:38.740 --> 02:37:42.210
can you imagine taking something and actually having
02:37:42.210 --> 02:37:45.370
to apply it from a program perspective,
02:37:45.370 --> 02:37:49.890
especially in light of the fact that we've got STR
02:37:49.890 --> 02:37:54.070
that we've got to help all these candidates get through.
02:37:54.070 --> 02:37:56.710
So whatever the decision is,
02:37:56.710 --> 02:38:00.170
I implore everyone to view it from the perspective
02:38:00.170 --> 02:38:05.170
of a university or program of actual implementation.
02:38:05.440 --> 02:38:10.440
That's why I asked about the post pilot timeline, thank you.
02:38:13.085 --> 02:38:14.920
Thank you, okay, we're gonna wrap up.
02:38:14.920 --> 02:38:16.980
I have been passed a note that I wanted to point out,
02:38:16.980 --> 02:38:18.650
and I'm not sure if the individual is still here,
02:38:18.650 --> 02:38:21.328
but we apparently have a member of the audience
02:38:21.328 --> 02:38:26.050
who retired in may after 42 years as a biology teacher.
02:38:26.050 --> 02:38:28.460
So, and his name is Coach Sharp.
02:38:28.460 --> 02:38:30.933
Could he stand so that we can recognize him?
02:38:31.899 --> 02:38:34.899
(audience applauds)
02:38:36.277 --> 02:38:41.277
43, congratulations, all right, folks,
02:38:41.550 --> 02:38:44.320
thank you for a very long day of dedication
02:38:44.320 --> 02:38:47.640
and all these things, we'll be back in February,
02:38:47.640 --> 02:38:49.610
and just appreciate everybody's perspective
02:38:49.610 --> 02:38:52.050
and all the folks that came forward to speak to us today.
02:38:52.050 --> 02:38:53.373
Thank you all very much.