1 / 29

Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force

Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force. Considerations for Commissioner Chester. Meeting Objectives. Overview of Task Force work and outcomes Solicit Commissioner thoughts Share ESE internal team thinking. Presentation Overview. Section 1: Task Force Description and Work

steffi
Télécharger la présentation

Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force Considerations for Commissioner Chester

  2. Meeting Objectives • Overview of Task Force work and outcomes • Solicit Commissioner thoughts • Share ESE internal team thinking Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  3. Presentation Overview • Section 1: Task Force Description and Work • Section 2: Comprehensive Assessment System Overview • Section 3: Observation Protocol • Section 4: Student Feedback Surveys • Section 5: Portfolios • Section 6: Simulations • Section 7: Next Steps Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  4. Task Force Description and Work Section 1

  5. Task Force Membership • Angela Allen, Brookline Public Schools • Ellen Ballock, Gordon College • Sean Brooks, Boston Public Schools • Linda Davis-Delano, Springfield College • Orin Gutlerner, Match Teacher Residency • Jo Hoffman, Bridgewater State University • Nathan Jones, Boston University • Stacy Kaminski, South Coast Educational Collaborative and Southeastern MA Readiness Center • Nancy Koh, Boston College • Michelle LeBlanc, Curry College • Michelle Morrissey, Boston Public Schools • Vera Ossen, UMass-Lowell • Christine Powers, UMass-Boston • Kathie Skinner, MA Teachers Association • Gabriella White, Nashoba Valley Technical High School ESE Staff: Heather Peske, Liz Losee, Meagan Comb, and Matthew Deninger Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  6. Task Force Charge Draft recommendations to the Commissioner to implement a pre-service teacher performance assessment. Commissioner has the authority to accept, modify, or reject any recommendations that we make. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  7. Key Meeting Outcomes • Meeting 1: Charge of the task force and preliminary discussions of national assessments • Meeting 2: National assessment presentation from representatives of: TeachingWorks / TEL, edTPA, and Praxis Performance Assessment for Teachers (PPAT) • Meeting 3: 1) Recognition, based on “pulse check,” little consensus, 2) pros and cons of each national assessment, 3) identify essential questions, e.g. should local scoring be part of equation • Meeting 4: Based on “straw man” poll, task force for members signaled support for a multiple component system and adopting/adapting edTPA • Meeting 5: Drafting of considerations and feedback for Commissioner • Meeting 6: Finalized task force considerations in PowerPoint slides and notes Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  8. Comprehensive Assessment System Overview Section 2

  9. Key Elements of Instrument • Provides formative data for program • Aligned to Massachusetts Professional Standards for Teachers • Has predictive validity • Provides summative rating for candidate • Local context considered/solicited • Measures impact of student learning during practicum (e.g., pre/post during practicum) • Psychometric properties (reliability, validity, bias) • Alignment to Teacher Evaluation Framework • Clear & specific developmental rubrics / scoring tools Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  10. Key Elements of Implementation • Data/Rating return is timely (no more than 6 weeks) • Ensures licensure reciprocity • Keeps cost low for candidates (no more than $300) • Local scoring is an available option • Attach stakes to the assessment • For candidates - program completion • For Programs - One of many indicators of program effectiveness in program review • Importance of training scorers • Weighting of components within the larger assessment system Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  11. Recommendation: A multiple measure assessment system Which may include… • Observation Protocol • Portfolio • Student feedback survey data on teacher candidates • Simulations Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  12. Observation Protocols Section 3

  13. Observation Protocols • Recommendation to convene educators around developing/selecting a protocol and training of observers • Observations: • Locally conducted and calibrated • Aligned to educator evaluation • Programs could supplement • Implementation considerations: • Solicit observation protocols from prep programs and districts • Non-standardized (little/no observer calibration, other than on the protocol itself) • Considered as part of program approval Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  14. Student Feedback Surveys Section 4

  15. Student Feedback Surveys • Student surveys: • Standardized questions • Non-standardized “cut scores” • Aligned to educator evaluation • Last component to roll out Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  16. Portfolios Section 5

  17. Portfolios • Portfolio assessment • National, standardized • edTPA • PPAT • Scored at program level, non-standardized • Scorers would need to be calibrated • N.B. Most candidates must complete a portfolio to pass through their program, but it is not a state requirement, nor is it standardized Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  18. Portfolio – edTPA (pros) • Cross-state comparison • First opportunity to learn about predictive validity • Mirrors National Board Certification (NBC) • Might encourage more to go for NBC • Better reciprocity • Discipline specific/vetted • More support tools for organizations • Potential to be a formative tool Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  19. Portfolio – edTPA (cons) • Cost • Turnaround time • May be unintended negative consequences for candidates from diverse populations • What can you attribute to the candidate vs what candidate inherited from mentor teacher • Not fully aligned with the Ed Eval Framework • Aligned to INTASC standards (Not fully aligned to MA Professional Standards for Teachers) Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  20. Possible Adaptation to EdTPA • Family and Community Engagement Standards • Could be built into the practicum • Student teacher may have to meet with a willing parent, and it would be observed • Work with edTPA on adding task Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  21. Portfolio - State Defined (pros) • Contextual factors are easier to take into consideration • Potential to be easier for low-incidence fields • No additional cost to candidates • Candidates would know where they stood going into the assessment • Alignment to MA Standards and Ed Eval Framework Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  22. Portfolio - State Defined (cons) • No cross-state comparison • Lack of reliability & validity • Limited licensure reciprocity Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  23. Simulations Section 6

  24. Simulations • Simulation assessments • National, standardized • TEL (in Pilot stage) – Deborah Ball Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  25. Simulations (pros) • Might work well for hard to assess areas • Family (and maybe community) engagement • Standardizing the stimuli • Minimizes context that may make it difficult to attribute to the skill of the candidate • Potential opportunity to have influence over the TEL • Authentic on-demand nature of teaching • Assess transferability of skills Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  26. Simulations (cons) • Feasibility • Narrowly focused on certain disciplines and skills – TEL specific • Authenticity • Cost – TEL specific • Design doesn’t take into account all different teaching methods • Implementation – TEL specific • Lots of questions about format of instrument up in the air – TEL specific Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  27. Next steps Section 7

  28. Next Steps and Timeline • Align work of PST indicator working group • Commissioner Decision – June • Implementation and Timeline: • Outreach and communication with stakeholders re: Commissioner decision and implementation plan • Work with vendor on implementation • Pilot and/or field test in 2015-16 academic year Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  29. Thoughts? • Commissioner • ESE Internal Team Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

More Related