The InTASC Model Core Teaching
Standards: Defining What Effective
Teaching Looks Like Today
National Conference on Student Assessment
June 19, 2011
Presenters
Kathleen Paliokas

Director, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC)
Carlene Kirkpatrick



Instructional Coach, DeKalb County Schools, Georgia
National Board Certified Teacher (EA Mathematics)
Served on the InTASC Model Core Standards Update
Committee
Student
Success
High Quality
Instruction &
Leadership
Core
Teaching
Standards
Growth
Opportunities
& Supports
Educator &
System
Accountability
Professional
Development
Standards
Data
Standards
Common
Core State
Standards for
Students
School
Leader
Standards
InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards
Update Process
 Original standards released in 1992
 Revision conducted by expert panel that included:
 Practicing teachers
 Higher education faculty who prepare educators
 State education agency staff
 Funding contributed by Educational Testing Service
(ETS), Evaluation Systems of Pearson, National
Education Association (NEA)
 A companion policy document was released with the
standards
Key Changes from the 1992
Standards
 Developmental Continuum: Standards no longer just for
beginning teachers but ALL teachers.
 INTASC becomes InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and
Support)
 A Focus on 21st Century Knowledge and Skills: Problem
solving, curiosity, creativity, innovation, communication,
interpersonal skills, the ability to synthesize across
disciplines, global literacy, ethics, and technological
expertise.
 Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners: Teachers
need knowledge and skills to customize learning for
learners with a range of individual differences.
Key Changes to Standards
(continued)
 Increased Emphasis on Assessment Literacy: Teachers
need to have greater knowledge and skill around how to
develop a range of assessments and how to use
assessment data to improve instruction and support
learner success.
 A Collaborative Professional Culture: Teaching is not a
private act.
 New Leadership Roles for Teachers and Administrators:
A shift in leadership from teachers working autonomously
in their classrooms to administrators, teachers, and others
sharing leadership roles and responsibilities for student
learning.
Groupings of Standards
The Learner and Learning
Standard #1: Learner Development
Standard #2: Learning Differences
Standard #3: Learning Environments
Content
Standard #4: Content Knowledge
Standard #5: Application of Content
Groupings of Standards
Instructional Practice
Standard #6: Assessment
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies
Professional Responsibility
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration
Key Cross-Cutting Themes in
Updated InTASC Standards
Theme
Knowledge
Disposition
Performance
*Collaboration
3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 5(p), 10(f),
1(k), 3(k), 3(l), 3(nm),
1(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 5(f), 6(b),
10(h)
5(v), 6(m), 7(l), 8(s), 9(l),
10(k), 10(l)
3(i), 3(j), 5(o), 6(j), 8(o)
3(o), 3(n), 6(o), 8(u)
*Communication
*Creativity/innovation
*Critical thinking,
problem solving
Cultural competence
7(a), 8(b), 8(c), 9(a-c), 9(e),
10(a),
10(b), 10(c), 10(d)
3(b), 3(e), 5(e), 5(f), 6(c), 8(h),
8(i), 8(j), 10(e)
5(k), 5(q), 8(l), 8(o)
3(m), 5(v)
5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 6(g), 8(k), 9(f)
4(h), 5(j), 5(n), 6(k), 8(l),
8(n)
4(n), 5(s), 8(r)
4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 5(g),
5(h), 6(d), 8(f), 8(g), 8(k), 9(b)
1(g), 2(i), 2(l), 2(m), 3(i),
4(k), 5(r), 7(f),
8(m)
3(n), 4(m), 5(v), 5(w),
7(f), 8(t),
2(f), 3(e), 5(h), 9(c)
InTASC Teaching Standards Linked to
Common Core Students Standards
CCSS Mathematics
InTASC Teaching Standards
Standard 5:
Dissemination and Public Comment
Feedback
 Broad outreach – press release, e-mail blasts, online
survey, focus groups, blogs, twitter, briefing of executive
directors of national associations
 Public comment ended early November 2010
 Raw numbers
 104 online surveys completed (+400 partials) – 36 states
 325 people participated in 23 focus groups
 Numerous ad hoc email messages and formal letters
 Synthesis and analysis completed and changes
incorporated
Public Comment Feedback
Critical General Comments
• Standards too broad to be useful
• Redundant and wordy, too many indicators
• Need to give more weight to accountability and outcomes
• This is status quo – would have been cutting edge a
decade ago
• Teacher leadership needs to be more explicit – it is more
than collaboration
• Lack of specific reference to students with disabilities is a
weakness
Changes to Public Comment Draft
 Strengthened teacher leadership expectations
• #10 renamed to Leadership and Collaboration
 Strengthened ongoing learning of teachers
• #9 renamed to Professional Learning and Ethical
Practice
 Strengthened assessment literacy further
• Called out formative and summative
• Added learner capacity to evaluate his/her own
progress
Changes to Public Comment Draft
 Added explicit language tied to Common Core
 Learning progressions, sequencing, stronger
accountability language for outcomes
 Added teacher will assure “mastery of content” to
stem of #4, added “performance against standards” in
indicators of #4
 Clarified accommodation and differentiation
language
 Added a glossary of key terms
Next Steps
 Work with states to move the standards into policy and
practice
 Identify with states key tools and resources to be
developed
 Developmental continuum aligned to the standards
 Model rubric and indicators aligned to the standards
 Comprehensive website with video clips aligned to the standards
 Meet with partners around the companion paper,
Implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards for
State Policy
Policy Implications
 Taking the standards to the next level of grain
size – what does that look like?
 Developmental Continuum
 Assessment at key transition points
• End of Pre-service – TPAC as one example
• NBPTS – accomplished teaching
• What does tier 2 or professional license
assessment look like?
Policy Implications
 Reform in Preparation
 Program approval/accreditation as leverage
 Clinical practice
 Ongoing Professional Learning
 New collaborative culture and use of data
 Teacher Evaluation
 Defining “effectiveness”
 Student growth and multiple measures
State Consortium on Educator
Effectiveness (SCEE)
 CCSSO is well situated to lead systemic approach
 Goal is implementation of standards-driven coherent systems of educator
effectiveness
 Three areas of focus
 Standards for Learning, Teaching and Leading
 Professional Growth and Support for Teaching and Leading
 Evaluating Teaching and Leading
 Incorporates InTASC and SCEL within a larger umbrella
 28 states have joined SCEE and named 6-member teams
 SCEE provides states with a forum for sharing via




Monthly webinars
Collaborative work site
National summit
Regional/topical meetings
SCEE Summit
 1st SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness
was held April 28-30 in Washington DC
 6 breakout strands
–
–
–
–
–
–
Preparation
Tiered licensure
Teacher evaluation
Leader evaluation
Professional development
Systems change
 Note: The June 14 SCEE webinar will provide a
summary of the breakout strand discussions
(www.ccsso.org/scee)
SCEE Summit Feedback
Regarding each strand, states would like
 To know what other states are doing
 Models, tools, lessons learned
 To know how to integrate “effectiveness” (e.g., student
growth) into all aspects of the system
 To know what the research tells us about the impact of
different strategies
For More Information
Please go to:
www.ccsso.org/intasc
•
•
•
•
Free PDF of standards
Bound copies can be ordered from Amazon
Free PDF of State Policy Implications paper
Research base is available
Contact Information
Kathleen Paliokas
kathyp@ccsso.org
202-336-7058
Carlene Kirkpatrick
Carlene_L_kirkpatrick@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us