The Changing Landscape of Teacher Education: CCTC Update and

Priorities for 2014

CalTPA Users MeetingMary Vixie Sandy, Ed.D.March 7, 2014

Teacher Preparation Program Enrollment, 2007-2008 to 2011-2012

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 -

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

44,558 42,245

36,577 34,838

26,446

Figure 4: Statewide Certification Data for 2011-2012

In state:

Out of state:

Credential Type NumberMultiple Subject 5,133Single Subject 5,275

Education Specialist 3,162

Credential Type NumberMultiple Subject 1,134Single Subject 1,245

Education Specialist 501

Demand Uptick

Source: CDE Data Quest, Projected Teacher Hires

Projected Teacher Hires

Year 2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

State Total 29,468 25,347 22,965 22,072 21,459 20,812 19,636 17,077 10,865 10,360 13,127 13,418

Things we’ve been working on

Operational effectiveness in discipline, credentialing, communications

Suspended, restarted accreditation site visits New standards for Adaptive PE, WL:ELD, Admin Modifications to standards to improve delivery of services to

English learners Alignment of TPEs and CSET with CCSS Finalization of the TAP panel work: 40 recommendations Review of the edTPA: approval for limited pilot New policy to require administrators to complete an APA Piloted a program completer survey

Need to review and update accreditation system Procedurally cumbersome, costly and resource intensive for programs

and CTC

Heavily weighted toward “inputs”

Not using performance outcome data systematically

Susceptible to attacks from other entities looking at quality in teacher preparation

Need to sharpen effectiveness and efficiency in this accountability system

Questions we are pondering…

How do we know that teacher preparation in California is Focused on the right things? Of high quality?

What aspects of the current system yield the greatest insight into program quality?

How can we use available performance indicators to sharpen our understanding of program quality and improve our accreditation system?

Systems that inform quality

Three interdependent systems impact quality and shape accountability in educator preparation

Standards for preparation Performance assessments and examinations (RICA, CSET) Accreditation

Improving quality and sharpening accountability requires attention to all three of these systems

CTC Goals for 2014

Focus on the essentials: Streamline and reduce the prescriptive nature of standards Ensure they support high leverage practices, encourage

innovation Increase reliance on outcome measures

Performance assessments Educator surveys Employer surveys Other indicators (admissions, program completion rates, employment

rates, retention rates, etc.) Decrease over-reliance on lengthy documentation

Improvements in TPAs

Incorporate new TPEs, Common Core Standards Strengthen reliability within models Create comparability across models Incorporate results into program review Bring Performance Assessment into Administrator licensing and

accreditation

TPA Implementation

CTC is required to ensure that all candidates have demonstrated their readiness and ability to teach

CTC relies on program completion and TPAs to meet this requirement

TPAs also required by statute to shed light on program quality

Three models currently approved in CA: edTPA in pilot mode

ETS has a new model, the Pre-Professional Assessment of Teachers that may be coming to CA for piloting purposes

TPA Implementation Standards

Standard 17: Administered for Validity, Accuracy and Fairness Consistent with design, careful monitoring, focus on equitable

treatment of candidates

Standard 18: Assessor Qualifications and Training Selection of qualified assessors, training, review

Standard 19: Administration, Resources and Reporting Scores and data inform induction; program review; accreditation

Accountability…

The assessment standards set the right stage for consistency, but accreditation is not well suited to monitor and ensure that they are well implemented in every case

TPAs are locally implemented, and we have little to no evidence that verifies equitable implementation and consistent scoring within or across models

How can we strengthen expectations for all approved TPAs to increase consistency in scoring and reporting?

Emerging proposal RFP to adapt, adopt or develop a new state model TPA that

meets the following conditions Comprehensive task based system that measures TPEs Aligns with CCSS and NGSS Multiple, Single subject and Education Specialist One stop online system of candidate registration Electronic platform for uploading TPAs and distributing to scorers Centralized or locally mediated scoring, online or in person System of scorer training, calibration, recalibration, oversight and

ongoing monitoring

Emerging proposal Recruitment of California faculty and practitioners as scorers Comprehensive reporting system for candidates, programs

and CTC for use in accreditation More than pass / fail rates Tied to rubrics that relate to the TPEs Informative for the IIP process

Formative assessment, opportunities maintained in programs

Anticipated outcomes A new state of the art statewide TPA system aligned with

CSTP, CCSS, NGSS, TPEs Consistent, comparable candidate and program outcomes

Within programs Within institutions Within TPA model Across models

Multiple models still enabled by statute must demonstrate consistent and reliable scoring Passing standard equivalent to the state model passing standard

TPA Pass Rates CalTPA

TPA Model

Program Type

2009-2010 2010-2011

 

  Total enrolled candidates

Number of candidates who attempted to complete the TPA

First time pass rate

Total pass rate

Total enrolled candidates

Number of candidates who attempted to complete the TPA

First time pass rate

Total pass rate

CalTPAMS 122 101 81% 100% 39 35 74% 100%SS 138 120 83% 100% 83 67 75% 99%

CalTPAMS 585 267 82% 100% 364 168 74% 100%SS 541 229 79% 100% 408 164 80% 100%

CalTPAMS 130 41 76% 95% 199 46 70% 96%SS 84 24 63% 96% 120 30 63% 100%

CalTPAMS 61 61 67% 100% 192 147 64% 97%SS 49 49 59% 100% 198 158 67% 96%

CalTPAMS 116 31 65% 100% 101 56 55% 91%SS 69 16 69% 100% 76 39 59% 97%

CalTPAMS 76 60 83% 100% 48 45 84% 96%SS 84 62 71% 100% 55 55 69% 98%