Remediation of Failing Candidates
UC San Diego, Education Studies
Bobbie Allen
Chris Halter
Rachel Millstone
UC San Diego Programs
Multiple Subject
Credential, M.Ed.
 ~50 students/yr.
 Student teaching


Secondary Single
Subject, M.Ed.
 ~30-40
students/yr.
 Math, Science,
English interns
PACT Passing Standard
Candidates pass the Teaching Event if they pass all five
rubric categories(P-I-A-R-A) AND have no more than 2
failing scores of “1” across tasks.
To pass a category, candidates must have a majority (at least
half) passing scores within the category. In Planning, 2 out
of 3 scores must be a “2” or higher; in Instruction,
Assessment, Reflection, and Academic Language, 1 out
of 2 scores must be a “2” or higher.
(Feedback rubric is not factored in this year).
UC San Diego Case Studies



When does remediation take place?
Who does it?
What form does it take?
Candidates complete PACT Teaching Events
in April; they are scored in late April with
remediation opportunity window in May-June.
Case Study #1


Not making adequate progress
Directed to complete a second year
of internship/student teaching and
not attempt the T.E.
Case Study #2
Failed one task (assessment)
 Counseled to review guiding questions and
redo task using same collection of
assessments as initially collected
 T.E. rescored by scorer not previously
familiar with candidate’s original T.E.

Case Study #3

Candidate failed teaching event by multiple
scorers.





Planning
Instruction
Assessment
Reflection
Academic
Language
2,2,2
2,1
2,2
2,1
1,1
2,2,2
2,1
2,1
2,1
1,1
2,2,2
2,1
2,1
1,1
1,1
Planning



Not clear how the EL student who has trouble with
vocabulary is helped by a sheet that has each section of
the conclusion/reflection typed.
Reference to Venn Diagram? WHY will it help the
students?
Plans refer to student “prior knowledge” but not clear what
that is.
Seems to use language of the rubric without evidence for
meeting it.
Instruction


At times student responses are ignored by the teacher in
the clips.
Teacher repeatedly aids in focusing the microscopes for
the students, such that the opportunity does not exist for
the students to develop this skill on their own.
Assessment



“Completion” and “accuracy” are listed as the criteria for
assessment, yet student work sample #2 was labeled as a
maximum “4” when “air bubbles” were listed as a common
element seen in cells.
Entire commentary is vague.
Next steps are not described in any detail.
Reflection




Daily reflections are merely summaries of the lesson.
Misuse of theory (Howard Gardner and VAK modalities)
Candidate places the onus for learning on the students’
individual intelligences, rather than on anything he does as
a teacher.
A few erroneous conclusions listed.
Academic Language


Understands role of vocabulary, but too late for any
impact. Some contradictory comments about vocabulary
being alternately important and not important.
Candidate mentions that about 1/4 of class has trouble
with text structure, but his response does not provide a
plan to address the problem: “These students can improve
their ability to answer questions completely and in the
correct format.”
Choices for Case #3
Redo a new Teaching Event (all tasks) OR
 Complete additional internship/student teaching (another quarter,
summer session?)
 Rescored after 3 meetings with faculty member using guiding questions
to facilitate a discussion over drafts of the tasks)
Planning
3,3,2
Instruction
2,2
Assessment
2,3
Reflection
3,2
Academic Language
2,2

Case #4


Candidate was Deaf; completed the Bilingual
Math PACT with accommodations.
Deadlines were extended for the written portion
of the PACT.
Questions?
Bobbie Allen
Chris Halter
Rachel Millstone
bmallen@ucsd.edu
chalter@ucsd.edu
rmillstone@ucsd.edu