Prairie State Wire

Illinois State Board of Education, Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force met March 11.

Here are the minutes provided by the task force:

I. Call to Order/Roll Call:

Dr. Jason Helfer called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. and asked meeting facilitator Talor Mourning to conduct a roll call. A quorum was not present.

Members Present:

Senator Tom Bennett

Dr. Kathryn Chval

Dr. Vito Dipinto

Dr. Marie Donovan

Shauna Ejeh

Representative Amy Elik

Shannon Fehrholz

Jessica Handy

Gloria Helin

Erika Mendez

Jennifer Smith

Dr. Michelle Stacy

Robin Steans

Kesa Thurman-Stovall

Dr. Diana Zaleski

Ex-officio member appointed by the state superintendent of education: Dr. Jason Helfer

Members Absent:

Dr. John Burkey

Elizabeth Dampf

Dr. Andrea Evans

Lori Grant

Katrina Hankison

Dr. Terry Husband

Dr. Lori James-Gross

Bob Langman

Dr. Christie McIntyre

Senator Laura Murphy

Jessica Nunez

Dr. Abir Othman

Claire Siejka

Representative Katie Stuart

Dr. Mary Ticknor

Others Present:

Meeting facilitator: Talor Mourning (ISBE)

Scott Anderson (Member of Public)

Jeremy Darnell (Member of Public)

Jill Donnel (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

Leslie Ellis (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

Jen Kirmes (Advance Illinois)

Jay Mehta (Panelist)

Garret Nolan (Member of Public)

Jim O’Connor (Advance Illinois)

Julie Peters (University of Illinois Chicago)

Omar Salem (Illinois Federation of Teachers)

Amber Sims (Panelist)

Timothy Walls (Panelist)

Mercedes Wentworth-Nice (Advance Illinois)

Delaney Workman (ISBE, Panelist)

II. Approval of Minutes

Dr. Helfer noted that a quorum was not present, so the motion for the approval of minutes would be tabled until the next meeting.

III. Public Comment

Dr. Helfer called for any public comment. Julie Peters stated that she would like to commend members of the task force for their dedication to this process. She then encouraged the task force to strongly consider an option outside of the edTPA. She said this could be done by modeling off other states to adopt a state-specific assessment or provide a menu of assessment options.

Dr. Helfer called for any additional public comment. No additional requests were made.

III. New Business

Dr. Helfer moved on to new business and shared that he had many thoughts and responses from the prior meeting. He called for members to share their thoughts and responses as well. Hearing no members speak up, he shared his thoughts. After hearing from the panelists in the previous meeting, Dr. Helfer shared that he felt the panelists were emphasizing the need for a teacher performance assessment that is appropriately developmental and reflective. He also stated that it was important that the teacher performance assessment reflect the work that a licensed teacher completes during a typical school day. Dr. Helfer also expressed that the expectations of a teacher performance assessment also must be clearly communicated so that all involved parties understand their role during the student teaching experience and the assessment can stay consistent from student to student.

Ms. Steans added to Dr. Helfer’s final point that it is important to prioritize consistency with the teacher performance assessment while also remembering that student teaching experiences can vary greatly based on many factors.

Senator Bennett stated that he appreciated Dr. Helfer's point about keeping the teacher performance assessment aligned to the work completed throughout the typical school day. He commented that he agrees with what was stated but would like clarification on Dr. Helfer’s final point. Dr. Helfer then explained that his final point was to clarify the teacher's performance assessment expectations.

Dr. Stacy said she wants to expand more on the variety of experiences educator candidates have. These experiences can vary greatly based on geographical location, availability of resources, and a variety of external factors. Dr. Stacy shared that she values consistency and recognizes what resources candidates have available. She would like to amplify that one size does not fit all.

Representative Elik stated that she brings a different perspective as a non-teacher. She spoke to an individual who evaluates teacher candidates to get their opinion on the matter. This individual stated that the edTPA would be better suited for practicing teachers who would like to become board-certified, not pre-service educators. In addition, this individual stated that the timing of

the teacher performance assessment is problematic, as candidates are applying for jobs and working through that process while also attempting to complete the assessment. As a lawmaker, Representative Elik stated that she is disappointed that this concern is just now being addressed. It seems the teacher performance assessment is keeping qualified individuals out of the classroom while allowing while allowing people who primarily excel at taking tests to enter it..

Ms. Smith stated that she understands the need to keep student teachers from becoming overwhelmed. However, as a practicing teacher, she has spent an extensive amount of time and work for yearly teacher evaluations. It is important that they are adequately prepared for their teacher evaluations.

Dr. Chval explained that she found it interesting that the panelists stated that the edTPA prevented student teachers from participating in extracurricular activities due to the amount of work involved. Additionally, she found it striking that students did not want to be placed in specific schools because they felt it would lower their chances of passing. She also reemphasized the comments made about students engineering lessons specifically for the edTPA and the comments made that the edTPA measures writing ability, not teaching ability.

Dr. Helfer stated that one of the main things being communicated is that the performance assessment must be appropriately timed and developmentally intense to reflect the workload found within a standard classroom.

Representative Bennett echoed that the intensity and time spent on the assessment are the most important pieces. He asked for clarification on an earlier point that was made. Dr. Helfer clarified that it is important that the teacher performance assessment adequately prepares candidates for their first day in the classroom as a licensed educator and all the additional tasks that go along with teaching.

Dr. Helfer moved on from this discussion to allow an ample amount of time for the edTPA completer panel discussion. He stated that the next meeting in a few weeks will go over what a teacher assessment could look like and what the most valuable components are.

Dr. Helfer then transitioned into the edTPA completer panel discussion. The task force had extended invitations to teachers who had to complete the edTPA as a part of their licensure. The panelists included Jay Mehta, Delaney Workman, Amber Sims, and Timothy Walls. The task force members then engaged in asking questions of them regarding their experiences completing the edTPA.

When asked about the impact the edTPA had on their student teaching experience, Mr. Mehta shared that the edTPA helped him to determine which experiences were necessary to be completed during student teaching. The steps that were completed during the edTPA helped to provide structure to his student teaching experience. He stated that each section of the assessment was completed with his cooperating teacher, and it helped them to determine everything he should be involved in.

When asked about the impact the edTPA had on their student teaching experience, Ms. Workman stated that she had to complete the edTPA twice due to a failing score on her first attempt. She stated that her experience completing the edTPA divided her student teaching experience into three sections. The first section of her experience was when she was completing her first edTPA and much of her time was spent preparing for and completing the assessment. The second section of her experience was after she submitted her first edTPA, but before she received the failing score, where she felt she could freely engage with the students without worrying about the assessment. The final section of her experience was after she received the failing score where she worked closely with her faculty supervisor and cooperating teacher to resubmit her edTPA.

Dr. Helfer thanked Ms. Workman for her candor and asked her to expand on how prepared she felt to complete the edTPA. Ms. Workman stated that she felt as adequately prepared by her program as she could be. She stated that she completed a practice edTPA within her program coursework but that it couldn’t adequately prepare her for the actual edTPA. Dr. Helfer asked her to clarify what she meant by that statement. Ms. Workman explained that because the passing of the performance assessment determines a candidate's eligibility for licensure, that environment cannot be recreated in the preparation of the edTPA.

When asked how well prepared he was to complete the edTPA, Mr. Mehta stated that he was able to be in the classroom starting with his freshman year and many of the edTPA components were built into the preparation coursework. Additionally, there was a practice edTPA in his program coursework that was helpful for his preparation. During his student teaching experience, there were deadlines that were placed by his program that helped him to stay on task and ensure the components of the edTPA were being completed on time.

Ms. Sims answered the same question by stating that she did not feel very prepared to complete the edTPA. She stated that because she had failed a prior licensure exam, her nerves made her feel underprepared to complete the edTPA.

Mr. Walls stated that he was very well prepared to complete the edTPA. Part of the preparedness came from practice edTPA that was integrated into his program coursework. Additionally, learning the language of the edTPA and how to accurately read and interpret the questions was helpful.

Dr. Helfer called for any follow-up from committee members. Ms. Mendez posed a question for the panelists and asked them if they felt the edTPA helped to build the foundation for their teaching experience in the following years.

Mr. Walls answered that question by emphasizing the amount of reflection required from the edTPA. He stated that he values that aspect, but that many of the other components of the edTPA weren’t useful in his daily activities in the classroom. Ms. Sims agreed with his statement.

Dr. Helfer asked the panelists if they felt that any aspects of the edTPA were helpful and used in their classrooms. Ms. Workman stated that the collection of artifacts during the edTPA was helpful during her yearly teacher evaluations.

Mr. Mehta stated that the assessment portion of the edTPA was helpful in his experience as a teacher. This portion has provided him with an opportunity to accurately assess what his students are learning and determine where the gaps in learning are and how to best fill those gaps.

Dr. Donovan asked Mr. Mehta if the edTPA was the first time he was fully engaged in the reflection of student work or if the edTPA simply provided him with an additional opportunity. Mr. Mehta stated that the edTPA simply provided him with an additional opportunity to practice this skill, not the only opportunity.

Ms. Ejeh asked Ms. Sims about the cost, both financially and amount of time, of having to retake the assessment. Ms. Sims stated that she did not have to take the edTPA twice, it was an additional exam that was then removed as a requirement. Ms. Workman spoke up as she did have to take the edTPA multiple times. She said it was an additional $200, which ended up being $500 for both attempts. For the time investment, it was an additional six weeks after the unsuccessful passing attempt.

Dr. Helfer then asked the panelists what they believe the roles of the involved individuals are in the support and development of teacher candidates during field experiences. Ms. Sims responded by stating that she felt they should provide an overview of the responsibilities within the classroom but also a brief explanation of the teacher evaluation process. Additionally, an overview of the responsibilities outside of the classroom, such as corresponding with parents and administrators.

Mr. Mehta answered this question by stating that there is a lot of personal responsibility for the teacher candidate and that they must learn to advocate for themselves and complete the required tasks. He then stated that it is important that the university supports candidates in the successful completion of the edTPA but that it should happen throughout the program.

Dr. Helfer summarized that Mr. Mehta believed that support should happen in a thoughtful manner with responsibility being released gradually. He then called on Ms. Workman who stated that their resubmission, and successful passing, of the edTPA relied heavily on the supports received from her university.

Ms. Workman stated that she does not believe that the sole responsibility of the preparation programs is to prepare the candidates to pass the edTPA. Instead, they should be creating well-rounded educators. She said the support received during her first attempt was on the same level as all candidates. However, on her second attempt she received more individualized support, which was helpful in her successful passing of the edTPA.

Mr. Walls shared that his cooperating teacher was helpful as she also completed the edTPA which allowed them to collaborate and work together on the tasks. He went on to state that the university faculty was also helpful as they provided guidance and assistance prior to submission. He shared that the edTPA is simply asking candidates to demonstrate skills, such as reflection and assessment, that they should have already built at this point in their program.

Senator Bennett asked panelists to expand more on the role of the cooperating teacher and the support received during the entire edTPA process.

Mr. Mehta shared that he could serve under two cooperating teachers, which allowed him to teach varied levels of coursework and gain a better understanding of the differences between students' learning styles. Additionally, there was a professor and faculty supervisor who worked closely with students and provided feedback during student teaching. There seemed to be a lot more support built into the program.

Ms. Workman shared that another level of support that had not been mentioned was the support received by other student teachers who were completing their edTPA at the same time. Working through these tasks together and being able to offer support and guidance throughout the process was helpful. She shared that her cooperating teacher was able to sit down with her as she was writing the edTPA and offer guidance and clarification as necessary.

Ms. Steans asked Ms. Workman to share further on her experience failing the first attempt of the edTPA and if there were any positive outcomes. Ms. Workman stated that by removing the high stakes impact of the assessment and instead focusing specifically on the day-to-day teaching and learning taking place in the classroom, she was able to pass her second attempt.

Senator Bennett asked about the length of the edTPA. Ms. Workman shared that her submission was roughly 40-50 pages, with all appendices included. She stated that the amount of time taken to plan, deliver, and write the edTPA was comparable to the amount of time taken to conduct her master’s level action research project.

Dr. Helfer stated that he has seen edTPA submissions range from 10-100 pages.

Dr. Chval asked if pass rate data was available. Dr. Helfer stated that it is available and can be shared. Mr. Mehta said there was a maximum number of pages indicated on each section.

Mr. Walls stated that his submission was roughly 20 pages without appendices and 50 pages with appendices. Senator Bennett asked panelists what they believe a more appropriate assessment would be.

Ms. Workman stated that she does not have an answer at this time, but she is confident that the task force will make a well educated decision.

Dr. Helfer stated that although that is an important question, it cannot be answered until more decisions are made by the task force. He then moved on to share that Ms. Mourning is no longer serving as the meeting facilitator. Instead, Ms. Workman will be the new facilitator.

IV. Adjournment

Dr. Helfer called to adjourn the meeting. All members present unanimously agreed to adjourn.

The motion was passed.

Meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

https://www.isbe.net/Documents_TPA/031124-Minutes.pdf