WACTE Minutes – October 26-27, 2011 University of Washington-Bothell
Attendees:
Algera
Henry
Bell
Janet
Bier
Marisa
Billings
Wanda
Bishop
Dan
ByersKirsch
Jan
Campbell
Linda
Canty
June
Coile
Dianna
Cooper
Bob
Dixon
Trisha
E-F-G-H
Eigenbrood Rick
Eisele
Jean
Elfers
Ana
Feeney
Suzanne
Foran
Maggie
Fox
Sheila
Gelderman Greg
Gritter
Kris
Hamel
Fred
Harris
Karen
Hibbs,
Lauren
Hillis,
Mike
Howeiler
Jon
J-K-L-M
Jones,
Kim
Kamp
King
Linda
Kinnunen
David
Kinyoun
Jane
Kline
Frank
Lashway
Larry
Lambert,
Connie
Lamphere
Dale
Landenburger
Larsen
Mary Jo
Low
Virginia
SPU
Pearson
UWS
Heritage
SPU
CWU
WACTE
WSU
SPU
WACTE
City U
SPU
UWB
UWS
Heritage
TESC
WWU
SPU
SPU
UPS
UWS
UW-B
PLU
UWB
CWU
Gonzaga
WWU
OSPI
UUWB
PLU
PESB
CWU
EWU
UW-T
Lesley
AU
McCleery
McGuire
Jennifer
Margit
Melgosa
McGuire
Mickel
Mikel
Muzzo
N-P-R
Naughton
Newbiill
Peck
Portin
Rios
S-T
Safstrom
Schieber
Schmitt
Sexton
Shinew
Smart
Smith
Sodoroff
Straub
Sterner
Sunderland
Taylor
Tiedeman
Tucker
V-W
Valeo
Vaughn
Walker
Wallace
Westgard
Whittacker
Williams
Woodward
Julian
Margit
Kathlyn
Ed
Maria
WWU
SU
WallaWalla
U
SU
PLU
AU
UWS
Pat
Gary
Cap
Brad
Francisco
CU
NWU
UWS
UWB
WWU
Bill
Craig
Sue
Patrick
Dawn
Bob
Steven
Christine
Sharon
Dennis
Jon
Cathy
Lynne
Vanessa
SPU
CU
SU
UWS
WSU
Heritage
City U
Gonzaga
Whitworth
Gonzaga
UWS
PLU
UW-T
Chris
Amy
Mike
Jennifer
Joyce
Andrea
Faith
Jon
EWU
SPU
CU
PESB
St. Martin's
Stanford
EWU
UPS
The meeting was called to order by President Pat Naughton.
A welcome to the campus was given by Bradley Portin, Director Teacher Education, University of
Washington-Bothell
Kenyon Chan, Chancellor of the University of Washington –Bothell welcomed the group and talked
about how much he appreciated the work of the schools of education in training the teachers who train
the students who come to the university.
The new deans were introduced: Francisco Rios, Western Washington University; Bob Smart, Heritage
University; Frank Klein, Pacific Lutheran University
Ana Elfers from the University of Washington presented the assessment framework update. We need to
use multiple forms of evidence to know better what we are doing thus using an evidence-based
framework for assessment. We need a comprehensive approach to the collection and use of evidence
for improvement of teacher education and teacher professional development. A continuous
improvement model is needed that will respond to accountability. A sub-group of the assessment
frameworks committee is focused on selection criteria and program features as they affect evidence
collection. How might we account for individual program differences and yet have results that will be
useful for program improvement? How do we collect evidence on recruitment and selection,
partnerships (schools, districts, state agencies), teacher preparation programs, initial placement and
induction and on-going development and how do we maintain an effective feedback loop? How do we
create a coalition for collective responsibility with agencies and P-12 partners?
Dennis Sterner spoke on the State and National Scan, Developing a Proactive Stance in the Current
Political Environment.
Our Future, Our Teachers: Defining high quality; linking scores to teachers and schools of
education
ESEA authorization: AYP for all but the lowest 5%; See Education Week October 16 issue;
Teacher evaluation based in part on student performance; AACTE’s input: revise the definition
of “highly qualified”; states should set measureable achievement and progress targets for
special populations; local control; multiple measures for data; strengthen teacher and leader
pathway in Title II; Defeat the Bennett amendment; improve literacy expectations in Title II
Common Core: A shared set of clear standards in math and English; SMARTER Balanced
Assessment Consortium (SBAC) working on new assessment system for K-12
Data, data, data
New Standard V for teachers including sustainability, cultural competence, academic language
Other: Alternative certification, residency programs, teacher competence and evaluation; online teacher education; education workforce development (ESDs); high need areas; STEM;
achievement gap, changes in state approval, changes in national accreditation
Funding
New issues: NCTQ; Excellent Schools Now, new INTASC standards
Additional issues: teacher recruitment and retention; common core standards and implications
for Standard V, including revision of the West-E tests; unfunded mandates; school-based
teacher preparation; co-curricular considerations; Excellent Schools Now; teacher –bashing;
effective mentor teachers
Jennifer Wallace gave a PESB update. She thanked the Schools of Education for their participation in the
workforce development meetings. She spoke about how the Board members were working to meet the
Board’s strategic demand and how to effectively gather data and then push it back? How do we deal
with the accuracy of the data from the IHE’s? The PESB is working with Ana Elfers on these issues.
Washington is a lead state in the TPA. All handbooks should be out by November 4th with all prompts
and rubrics. Taskstream, Chalk & Wire, TK-20, and LiveText will load the templates. In the area of
certification, Jennifer stated that certification funds support the PEABS and site visits. They are working
on the timelines for the sending of fees. Twitter and Facebook are being used by the Board as a “look
for” announcement tool.
Pat Naughton and Linda Campbell led an activity allowing the participants to prioritize issues for the
Executive Board to consider as priorities/goals for the 2011-12 year. Some listed include: A balance in
the types of activities at the meetings; TPA and other hot button topics; lobbying strategies; the
Interstate Compact; relationships with school districts: value-added concepts; possibility of a regional
AACTE meeting
Bob Cooper gave an update on the legislative agenda. On budget issues K-12 cannot be tapped much
more, but IHEs and Health and Human Services can. The legislature has recognized Western Governors
University, but no money will be given for support. Innovation Schools will be allowed, and there will be
an elementary math specialty endorsement. There is a draft agenda for considering equivalents for the
West-B requirement; proposals for alternative routes for principals, and changes in the Recruiting
Washington Teachers Program; and, strengthening P-20 data systems to inform decision-making and
early learning guidelines.
Business meeting:
The minutes were approved as written.
The treasurer thanked the Schools of Education for 100% payment of the institutional dues.
WACTE will be working on better budget tracking. The treasurer’s report was approved as
given.
Approval was given to expand the Executive Board with a second member-at-large, and thus to
change the by-laws to reflect this change.
Jessica Vavrus will be contacted to present to the January WACTE meeting regarding the
Common Core as Schools of Education will have to retool to support candidates in their ability to
teach the core competencies beginning in fall 2014.
Thursday, October 27
Pat Naughton welcomed participants to the second day, and Bradley Portin added his welcome from the
University of Washington-Bothell
Andrea Whitaker from Stanford University congratulated the Washington State Schools of Education for
leading the way on the TPA. The use of this assessment tool will provide evidence of effective teaching,
support program improvement and inform policy. A key will be how we can gather and use the
evidence from this assessment.
The field test of the TPA will give a variety of perspectives. An analytic rubric will provide details about
performance. The data can be used in both a formative and summative fashion to guide programmatic
change. The focus will still need to be on all valued program outcomes. Attrition data must be carefully
examined.
In the field test will look at does the instrument technically work and does it give the information
needed. They are testing the data-gathering process. They are building the program for the
implementation year especially regarding the timing. They are looking at a three-week turn-around for
the implementation, not the field test. It is important that all concerns be shared.
Panel presentation and questions:
Questions and answers from the Moderated Teacher Performance Assessment Policy Panel at the
WACTE fall Conference; October 27, 2011
Members: Patrick Sexton, Larry Lashway, Margit McGuire, Janet, Bell, and Andrea Whitaker
Q: Will we get scores back from the field test?
A: Results by candidates will be given back to each institution
Q: What is the timeline?
A.
We thought that was data-gathering, not consequential, but now we are adjusting. The
deadline for submittal is May 15, and it will take 6 weeks to score. We are asking for how
many submissions will be coming by the submission deadline. We are trying now to look at
a rolling basis since we are finding that submission dates are all over the calendar. We are
working on it.
Q: What is the publication date for implementation handbooks?
A: The goal of the field test is to get feedback for final implementation handbooks. Timeline is
an issue. Will get a start on the handbooks, but consequential handbooks may not be out until
September due to field test deadlines. Will need help in recruiting scorers if we are going to
meet rolling deadlines. Scorers will be paid $75.00 per assessment and a small stipend for
training.
Q: Why do scorers need to be trained just two weeks prior to the assessment?
A: Training needs to be recent, and is very important for calibration. There is no specific two
week window. There will be a variety of training modules – all on line. Some training will be at
the scorer’s convenience; other trainings will be in a webinar approach.
Q: Will calibration end at some time and then begin again?
A: Yes – There will be calibration exercises at various times.
Q: How do we use feedback from the field test for fall?
A: Results will not be back quickly enough to adjust fall plans. There are three elements on
which universities can work: Academic language, assessment, and student voice
Comment by Cap Peck: Studying work samples generates the best results for programs, even more than
the quantitative data.
Q: How are we going to use results for when the test becomes consequential?
Comment: Whitworth is using the TPA like the PPA at this time as a part of the decision-making
process.
Q: When will scorers be recruited?
A: The recruiting information will be up on the PESB website on November 1. We will also be
doing an email blast.
Q: Do we have the stipend amount?
A: We have scoring assessment at $75.00. Stipend for training has not yet been set. Process for
training will be different for the field test than for the operational testing. We will have the
opportunity to give feedback. Larry Lashway and Patty Larriva are using their contacts to secure
scorers, but are waiting to hear the scorer qualifications. WEA has also been engaged.
Q: If we do not have students submit artifacts using the final interactive versions, what happens?
A: The first six will be available by January so candidates will be able to submit these. They can
cut and paste into the template. The others will be available later in January.
Q: Will having students save in Livetext be sufficient?
A: They should keep working there and then cut and paste from Livetext, Taskstream, etc. That
is the goal so that that they don’t lose the data.
Q: A $75.00 stipend is being offered for scoring as compared to $150.00 that people can earn as
substitutes. Could we raise the stipend to engage quality scorers?
A: $75.00 is for the field test. This might change for the operational version. If we raise the
stipend, there may be consequences in costs to candidates.
Comment: Patty Larriva stated that the PESB is thinking about offering clock hours for scoring. 10 clock
hours for 4 assessments.
Q: We are talking about 2 hours for scoring each document and then also training. Could universities
pool their expertise?
A: We think that will eventually happen. This will be up to Pearson to coordinate. However,
the universities cannot abdicate responsibility for scoring. Everyone will need to contribute to
fill the pool.
Q: In thinking of the numbers and recruitment, and if we can’t come up with the numbers, who picks up
the slack? What happens if we can’t recruit enough scorers?
A: We could recruit from other institutions. It is our job to staff scoring sessions to make it
happen.
Q: If student voice is not a part of the national program, what are the ramifications?
A: Scorers could take the “Washington module on student voice” training and be able to score
even if they are not from Washington. We also hope to use principals-in-training and folks
involved in induction programs.
Q: Concern exists about the time of 2 hours to score. (It may take longer) How many should a scorer be
expected to score?
A: The 4-6 hours that we have been hearing to score a submission is unreasonable. With the
templates, calibration, and rubrics, the model will make it more efficient. We will track the time
in the field test. If you are going to take 2 days learning to score, you should score 4-6
portfolios.
Comment: Cap Peck suggests that the institutions bring faculty together after training to talk about
what they have learned and that this would be an incentive to score.
Q: We thought about delaying the consequential aspect of the TPA, but then how do we pay for the
field testing? So what were the decisions?
A: Patty and Larry will cover what will be consequential and when. The field test will go to the
TAC committee. They have already looked at the pilot. We will take this information then to
the PESB, and the Board will discuss problematic areas. We want to make sure the students are
taken care of. The Board could say that all areas are consequential or that certain areas will be
consequential. The concern has been made very clear to the Board that the candidates need to
be prepared.
Q: Video permission forms? Are they going to be available in languages other than English? What
about the role of the PESB in recruiting?
A: Conversations have taken place with superintendent organizations and personnel directors
about video-taping and receiving permission to use this. These groups are conducting a survey.
From this feedback, we will create a uniform form. From there, we will create forms in several
languages. We are working on making all video-taping inclusive in the permission form. We
also need to communicate with the candidates about their appropriate use of the video-taping.
We are working on an affidavit for candidates addressing this appropriate use. In addition, we
will work on including the concept of using the videos for program evaluation purposes.
Comment from Patrick Sexton: If you want a video-permission form addressing these areas, contact me.
Q: What are we responsible for regarding documented needs for accommodations?
A: Whatever is in the plan we need to address. Hard to anticipate the situations. We will rely
on the institutions for support. We will deal with these on a case-by-case basis. The institution
and the candidate should contact Pearson, and Pearson may also have to contact Stanford.
Q: What about permission from the candidate for the use of their video-tapes for scorer training
purposes?
A: We will take that under consideration.
Q: Considering that we won’t receive results until September, how do we help our candidates with their
confusion? Can we use what we learn in spring? Will this be enough even though we will have more
information by fall?
A: We are implementing the operation versions in fall 2012, but these are not consequential
until 2013. We have a whole process of standard-setting and benchmarking in summer 2012.
We are trying to be responsive to the need for information as soon as possible so we are
working on rolling deadlines so that we can give as much information back as early as possible
on candidates, but we may not get the date analysis on the programs back to the institutions
until August/September.
Q: The question on the handbooks still exists. How do we use the feedback from the field test to
improve the handbooks?
A: We are hoping that there will not be a great deal of change, but we will not know until we
look at the feedback.
Q: Can we use what we have this spring (2011 handbooks) to use and score fall 2012?
A: Yes.
Q: Can we make changes from the field tests and still set standards or will we have to wait until the final
documents?
A: Will have to look. Many issues need to be decided before standard-setting.
Q: Candidates are not paying fall 2012. What will happen if the scoring comes back to the institutions
as this is a huge fiscal issue?
A: No answer yet.
Q: Should we be moving forward as quickly as we are in making this consequential for candidates?
What is the consideration of timelines?
A: If we don’t pay attention to these concerns and we trample on candidates, then we are
remiss.
Comment: Handbook delivery is not the same as candidate readiness.
Q: Can we talk with our legislators about the timeline?
A: These conversations are on-going.
Bob Cooper shared the highlights of the Governor’s budget proposal for the special session: 15-20%
cuts in Higher Ed; eliminate the state need grants; suspend the work study grants; delay the
apportionment payments to K-12; eliminate the levy equalization; transfer bussing responsibility to the
districts, increase class size by 2 in grades 4-12; reduce the school year by 5 days eliminate the National
Board bonus; eliminate full day kindergarten. The next revenue forecast will be November 17.
Cathy Taylor gave a presentation on student voice rubrics.
Cathy Taylor also presented on academic language. Some resources are Jeff Zwiers, Anita Walqui,
Tomasco Garrett, and Mary Ann Hundley in addition to GLAD training and Siop training.
A question was posed as to the percentages of student voice and academic language rubrics in
relationship to the entire TPA. Will this be studied? Also, with student voice being relatively new, will
this be a validity issue?
Attendees were reminded to send in contributions to the NING so that everyone will be able to share.
The field test will be over spring 2012. Fall 2012 will see full implementation. For purpose of the field
test, Washington has been allotted 3000 spots. If all of these are not used, the remaining slots will be
rolled over to the fall.
Thanks were given to Bradley Portin and his staff for their gracious hospitality.
The next meeting will be January 18-19 at St. Martin’s.