WACTE Spring Meeting Minutes for April 27-28, 2011
Red Lion Inn at the Park- Spokane, WA
The meeting was called to order on Wednesday, April 27, at 1:00 p.m.
President Pat Naughton welcomed everyone and introduced the agenda for the day. He also announced
that representatives from Task Stream, Live Text, TK20, and Chalk & Wire would be available after the
meeting to talk with attendees about their services.
Coleen Putaansuu, Patti Larriva, and David Brenna gave an update on the PESB activities:
*Accreditation visits have moved to an off-site/on-site protocol. This is a better process, and the issues
of a new protocol are being worked out.
*On-line providers – The PESB would like to see quality on-line instate providers. The PESB wants to
have access for all.
*If anyone has comments to make, a public comment link exists on the PESB website.
*The PESB is developing policy supporting relationships between universities and P-12 districts. What
can the PESB do to make K-12 seriously consider having to develop partnerships?
*Regional workforce planning meetings are now taking place. How might we use them to help support
partnerships?
*The PESB will continue the work that it is doing even in the face of budget constraints.
*HB1449 has provided funds to move forward with e-cert
*The QEC is continuing work on education reform and a committee considering salary compensation
guidelines will begin in July.
*A working group regarding the West-B will be held in May.
*Conversations are on-going regarding specialty math endorsements.
*Western Governors’ University has full approval to offer certification programs. The Washington State
AG has been asked for clarification regarding some of the legal issues.
*Pearson has been chosen as the vendor for the TPA and will field test at no cost to the candidates.
Bob Cooper provided an update on the 2011 legislative session:
*Very few bills were introduced.
*Higher Education budgets were significantly reduced.
*HB1443 kept recruiting of Washington teachers alive even if there is no funding.
*HB1593 – the alternative routes for principals will more than likely fail.
*The house and senate budgets still need to be reconciled.
*Innovation schools are being studied.
*Invite legislators to come to your campuses to support them in understanding the role of the Schools of
Education.
Patrick Sexton and Ana Elfers presented on building out the Evidence-Based framework
*We need to build a coalition for collective accountability and responsibility including WACTE, PESB,
SBE, P-12 partners, WSSDA, WASA, WEA.
*How might this manifest itself into a report for legislators? For program improvement?
*A taxonomy need to be created – How do we catch the nuances?
*How do we manage the data systems, especially P-20?
*What is the overarching mission? The state mission? The institutional mission?
WACTE BUSINESS MEETING
The minutes were approved as written.
Mike Hillis, treasurer, reported that every institution has paid its dues. Please make sure that you have
paid your conference dues. WACTE is in the process of becoming a non-profit. We have a balance of
$19,000, income of $36,000, and approximately $10,000 in disbursements.
Pat Naughton reported that a position has been added to the Executive Board for policy and research
and that Jim DePaepe has been appointed to that position.
Pat then introduced Linda Campbell, the new Executive Director of WACTE. She introduced herself to
the group. She has been a teacher at all levels and has worked the NEA as a facilitator of change. She
created the TE program at Antioch University and has worked with foundations raising $13 million for
higher education institutions. She plans to bring in resources and lighten the load of the WACTE
Executive Board.
The Policy and Resolutions Committee is working on a statement to the PESB regarding the Interstate
Compact.
The National Center for Teach Quality has requested that all schools of education in Washington
complete a survey regarding their certification programs. They have sent a formal request for schools of
education to complete a second part of the survey and have stated that they will file a request for public
information if cooperation is not forthcoming. It has been communicated to them that Washington
State is in transition in its educational preparation programs. In the next couple weeks a letter will be
drafted addressing WACTE’s concerns. It will then go to a small group of the institutional
representatives, on to the larger IR group, and finally to all WACTE institutions. Pat Naughton will place
the letter on the WACTE website. Might we consider a press release with proactive messages prior to
the NCTQ publication?
The nominating committee has put forth the names of Sheila Fox for Representative at Large and Sharon
Straub for secretary. Both were elected by acclamation.
TPA POLICY DISCUSSION
Margit McGuire, Cap Peck and Patrick Sexton led a policy discussion on the TPA.
The field test begins in January 2012. No charge will exist for the field test, and Pearson will manage the
process. The Stanford system of scoring is that candidates will pass with a score of “2”. We will use this
as an interim benchmark and then work with a standard-setting process. What does a “2”mean, a “3”?
Should we allow any “1’s”? The Stanford scoring states that there can be no more than 2 “1’s,” and that
they cannot be in the same dimension? It will be an institutional decision on whether it will require
passage of the TPA during the field test for the passing of the field experience. The turn-around time
will be at least 2 weeks. Pearson would like an idea of how many candidates will be coming through the
field experience and at what point in time.
Questions: Why a 4 point scale when there is a dilemma of “2” being competent? Further discussion on
a 3 vs. a 4 point scale? How can this scale be used as a program tool. Consensus needs to be developed
around a descriptor rather than a number. Might we use the word “novice” or “beginning” as part of
the title of the document?
How many candidates will Pearson score in the pilot? Pearson will manage this and work with the PESB.
Scoring will be accomplished through Pearson’s platform. The decision of who will score will be the
state’s decision. It may be problematic to find enough scorers. Is there a recruitment plan? What might
be an interim strategy for the field trial next year?
What are the politics of state/national standards-setting processes?
If we go with a Washington version of the TPA, there will be a higher cost to candidates and the scores
will not be consistent with the national scores. There is some pushback from the PESB since Washington
has such an emphasis on student voice. Should we pull out student voice, or should we make this a
signature assessment separate from the TPA?
How will the results be reported out?
What is the relationship between the TPA and endorsements? Will we still need the West B and the
West E? Does the TPA serve for highly qualified? What about a candidate who is working on more than
one endorsement? Might the TPA be a better option for Pathway 2?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Pat Naughton welcomed everyone and presented an overview of the day.
Frank Kline presented a recommendation for WACTE regarding the Interstate Compact focused on high
quality teachers for all students in Washington State. A motion was made to support the framing of the
resolution and the motion passed 17-0.
Lynn Olson presented the NING TPAC online platform. tpaconline@ning.com. She thanked Margit and
the Technical Assistance Committee for their dedication in moving the development process forward.
The Power Points she used will be available on the NING. Topics presented: video-taping, cooperating
with schools and teachers, logistics, TPA training and scoring logistics, remediation, and using the TPA
data.
At further WACTE meetings, time will be given for sharing resources.
The WACTE membership then moved into role-alike groups to discuss the above issues.
Questions exist on the number of TPAs that will be scored internally. This needs to be considered within
the context of a larger scoring plan. WACTE needs to ask the PESB not to make final decisions before
WACTE has had a chance to gather more information.
WACTE needs to establish a collaborative committee to work on these decisions and create a forum for
on-going conversations.
The issue of faculty workload is still looming large. How do we leverage finding scorers? We need more
information to make an educated recommendation.
Who is driving the scoring plan? Will it be an institutional decision? A psychometric decision?
Will it be a program decision to decide in which content area elementary teachers take their TPA?
Will there just be one TPA taken at the secondary level even if candidates are pursuing more than one
endorsement?
Will there be TPAs for all endorsement areas by January?
Issue of student voice. Will we move student voice out of the national TPA into a state signature
assessment? If so, will it be the same assessment across all institutions? Will all institutions aggregate
and share data? Will taking the student voice aspect out of the national TPA format allow for a larger
scorer pool? Will it reduce costs? Will it allow for more effective national comparison? Will it allow for
a more feasible turn-around time? The Policy and Resolutions Committee will be the group to deal with
this issue when it arises. At this point a great deal more information is needed.
A motion was made to refer the issue of student voice to the Policy and Resolutions Committee when
more information exists to make an informed decision. The motion was seconded and passed 17-0.
The PESB will be asked to expedite a state document that will support candidates in obtaining releases
for use of student work in the TPA. Institutions would like to see this accomplished before the pilot.
WACTE attendees were asked to share the information from the meeting with all their colleagues.
Next meeting: October 26-27, 2011 at UW-Bothell
Respectfully submitted
Sharon Straub, recording secretary