Galesburg Reporter

Illinois State Board of Education Teacher Assessment Task Force met March 25

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

I. Call to Order/Roll Call:

Dr. Jason Helfer called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. and asked meeting facilitator Delaney Workman to conduct a roll call. A quorum was present.

Members Present:

Senator Tom Bennett

Dr. Kathryn Chval

Dr. Vito Dipinto

Dr. Marie Donovan

Representative Amy Elik

Dr. Andrea Evans

Shannon Fehrholz

Lori Grant

Jessica Handy

Katrina Hankison

Gloria Helin

Dr. Terry Husband

Dr. Lori James-Gross

Dr. Christie McIntyre

Erika Mendez

Senator Laura Murphy

Jessica Nunez

Dr. Abir Othman

Jennifer Smith

Dr. Michelle Stacy

Robin Steans

Representative Katie Stuart

Dr. Diana Zaleski

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

Members Absent:

Dr. John Burkey

Elizabeth Dampf

Shauna Ejeh

Bob Langman

Claire Siejka

Kesa Thurman-Stovall

Dr. Mary Ticknor

Others Present:

Meeting facilitator: Delaney Workman

Scott Anderson

Jeremy Darnell

Jill Donnel

Leslie Ellis

Sara Kaufman

Jen Kirmes

Suzanne Lee

Talor Mourning

Julie Peters

Emma Winn

II. Approval of Minutes

Dr. Helfer called for discussion on the minutes. Hearing no discussion, he called for a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was made by Ms. Grant and seconded by Dr. Donovan. Dr. Helfer then called for a roll call vote. Ms. Workman took the roll call vote on the motion.

Dr. Kathryn Chval – Yes

Dr. Vito Dipinto – Yes

Dr. Marie Donovan – Yes

Representative Amy Elik – Yes

De. Andrea Evans – Yes

Shannon Fehrholz – Yes

Lori Grant – Yes

Jessica Handy – Yes

Katrina Hankison – Yes

Gloria Helin – Yes

Dr. Terry Husband – Yes

Dr. Christie McIntyre – Yes

Erika Mendez – Yes

Senator Laura Murphy – Yes

Jessica Nunez – Yes

Jennifer Smith – Yes

Dr. Michelle Stacy – Yes

Robin Steans – Yes

Representative Katie Stuart – Yes

Dr. Diana Zaleski – Yes

III. Public Comment

Dr. Helfer called for any public comment. Sara Kaufman asked the task force if the weight of the edTPA has been considered. She also inquired about the percentage of students who passed the edTPA and if they were hired to teach. She stated that the weight of the edTPA needs to be challenged because hiring principals do not review edTPA scores prior to offering teacher candidates a position within their school. Dr. Helfer stated that the task force members will keep these items in mind as they continue their work.

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

III. New Business

Dr. Helfer moved on to new business and asked members to share their thoughts and responses from the prior meeting that contained the edTPA completer panel. Hearing no one speak up, he moved to the next part of the meeting, where he invited members to share their responses to three questions using MentiMeter. All responses can be found in Appendix A.

The first question was: What teaching attributes should be assessed through a Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA)? Dr. Helfer responded to an inquiry asking for clarification on the question. He stated that he meant for this question to ask about the qualities, dispositions, behaviors, and skills necessary to become a teacher. He then encouraged the members to respond to the question based on their own interpretation.

Dr. Helfer summarized the responses to show that the responses included planning, assessment, differentiation, cultural responsiveness, classroom management, reflection, responsiveness to students, connection to the Danielson Framework, compassion, collaboration, and communication. Dr. Helfer then called on members to share their thoughts out loud with the group.

Dr. McIntyre asked a clarifying question to determine whether the term TPA was referring to something that is already being completed by students at the university level, or if it is being used to describe an additional assessment that is to be completed in addition to the university requirements.

Dr. Helfer responded by sharing that this is a decision that will be made by the task force members. The members can decide to have the state provide universities with the components of the TPA and set the minimum standard or the members can decide to select an assessment and move forward with that as their recommendation.

Dr. McIntyre, director of Teacher Education Programs at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, clarified for the group that the edTPA is considered an additional requirement to the clinical evaluation process.

Ms. Steans then stated that a university does certainly have a role, but it is also up to the state to determine the attributes necessary prior to licensure. She stated that she answered the question with the understanding that the TPA is an additional requirement. Ms. Steans then shared that she was glad that the responses to the first question were consistent.

Representative Stuart shared that she does not believe the task force's charge is to recommend one assessment. She thinks that the task force can recommend that the work being done by the universities can meet the charge of the committee.

Dr. Helfer said that he was sharing information with a different interpretation of the task force charge. He believed the use of “consistent” in the legislation was in reference to selecting one assessment. He stated that it was important to get clarification on the language used in the legislation.

Dr. Helfer discussed the evaluation portion of the assessment and encouraged members to think about how a candidate might show they are proficient in a specific area. He then discussed the importance of the assessment's intensity and emphasized the importance of ensuring that the teacher candidate does not get overwhelmed but also gets a realistic sense of the workload that comes with being a teacher of record.

Dr. Helfer then shared more about the content standards addressed in Part 24-27 of Rule and explained that those standards will need to be kept in mind as the task force makes a recommendation.

Dr. Donovan shared what she noticed in the MentiMeter responses. She said it is interesting that many responses mirror the thoughts the panelists shared, especially with the role of the cooperating teacher.

Dr. Helfer then called for members to respond to the second question via MentiMeter: What forms/types of evidence should be submitted as part of a TPA? As responses came in, Dr. Helfer noted a specific response and asked the task force member to share what they meant by using structure in their response.

Dr. Stacy shared that she was the individual who submitted the response. She clarified that she meant to refer to the structure of the lesson.

Dr. Helfer noted that many of the responses indicated that video recording should not be a portion of the assessment. He noted one response that stated, “Observations by cooperating teachers and university clinical educators, as well as a unit of study with  evidence of ST impact on p-12 learning.” Based on this response, he asked the group about how evidence can be submitted without a video component.

Dr. McIntyre responded that she was the individual who submitted that response. She stated that within the university, there is often an opportunity for teacher candidates to demonstrate their knowledge without a video. The creation of lesson plans, units of study, and assessments can show that the teacher candidate demonstrates knowledge. She stated that it is much more important to know that a candidate can put together a series of lessons to respond to student needs than it is for them to demonstrate knowledge of teaching a single lesson.

Ms. Steans asked how it is demonstrated that a candidate can do what they are writing in the lesson plans. She explained that there is a difference between being able to understand something enough to write it down and to be able to execute the lesson in a classroom. She shared some of the obstacles that a candidate may face in the classroom and how that may impact their ability to teach the lesson.

Dr. McIntyre responded that the observation would be done by the cooperating teacher and the university clinical educator.

Ms. Steans responded that she has a reservation with this because it is difficult to ensure consistency.

Dr. McIntyre shared her experience as a university clinical educator. She said she went through training with the other clinical educators to ensure consistency and reliability.

Ms. Steans explained that this process is helpful for ensuring reliability within an institution, but it does not ensure consistency across universities.

Dr. McIntyre explained that in order to ensure consistency across universities, there would need to be a nationally normed assessment, such as the edTPA.

Ms. Steans reiterated that it is important to ensure that all candidates are adequately assessed as programs and institutions vary greatly.

Dr. McIntyre wondered if there could be training for clinical educators that is similar to the training principals and superintendents go through to ensure consistency with teacher evaluations.

Dr. Chval shared her thoughts that there isn’t much consistency with the edTPA currently. She also shared that when principals and superintendent are observing interviewees teaching a lesson, they are looking for evidence that the teacher can connect and build relationships with the students. She shared that there is a teacher evaluation system in another state that principals must go through each year to ensure interrater reliability.

Dr. Helfer shared that there was an idea where similar institutions could share a percentage of their edTPA submissions with another institution. This would serve two purposes. The first purpose is to ensure consistency of what a Day 1-ready teacher should be. The second purpose is to ensure licensure requirements were being met. He shared that this option could provide a way to ensure reliability and consistency across raters.

Dr. Chval explained that we are not requiring individuals to take this assessment if they are seeking reciprocity from out of state so there is not consistency across Illinois and other states.

Representative Stuart explained that there is a lack of consistency from individuals within the state who are in alternative programs.

They take the assessment with an entirely different set of circumstances than an individual who is enrolled in a traditional program.

Senator Bennett asked for clarification on the questions and asked if there could be a different way of thinking without having the TPA added to the end.

Dr. Stacy shared that the state already defines the minimum expectations of a program as it must submit assessment plans as part of the approval process. She explained that the edTPA and other performance assessments are seen as an additional assessment that is very difficult for small rural colleges to complete.

Senator Bennett asked for clarification and asked if teacher preparation programs are already meeting these requirements.

Dr. Stacy responded that she believes many programs are already meeting requirements.

Representative Stuart shared that the cost of training university clinical educators should not be a barrier as the cost of the edTPA has already been placed on the candidates. She said she thought teacher preparation programs should be happy to work together to help students.

Dr. Donovan shared that teacher educators across that state can gather by licensure area to build something that assesses the skills necessary for candidates need to become licensed. She shared that the groups should be working with stakeholders to ensure that the assessments are adequate.

Ms. Steans explained that it is important for teacher preparation programs to continue the work being done but that it is also important to determine whether there needs to be another layer. She shared the parallel between teacher licensure and licensure in other fields and explained that it is important to have an additional assessment outside of the programs to remain consistent.

Dr. Evans explained another parallel between teacher licensure and licensure in other fields. She shared that often candidates in a field must rely on licensed professionals to support their development. She explained that there are many individuals involved in the process and it is important that they remain involved. She explained that having programs aligned to the same sets of standards creates a type of consistency that is similar to other fields as well.

Dr. Helfer shared that one of the most important components of a teacher’s preparation is their student teaching experience. He stated that the TPA should work to assess the most important skills that a Day 1-ready teacher needs to know how to do.

Senator Bennett shared that it is important to balance the workload and make sure that teachers are not being overloaded, but rather, adequately prepared.

The third question was presented and members were asked to respond: How/in what ways/who should evaluate a submitted TPA?

Senator Bennett asked who knows the most about the student and would be able to provide the best feedback.

Dr Evans reiterated the importance of the university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and student teacher. She explained that the relationship between the three individuals is important to the development of the skills that are necessary to have.

Dr. McIntyre shared a resource in the chat that helps to build understanding of the triad.

Representative Stuart shared that the growth of a student teacher is important to assess and that it cannot be assessed through a TPA. The clinical educator and cooperating teacher can assess the growth.

Ms. Steans shared that there is currently little training available for cooperating teachers. She shared that more training will be needed if the cooperating teacher plays a role in the performance assessment.

Senator Bennett asked how it is determined that an individual becomes a cooperating teacher.

Ms. Steans shared that there are a variety of ways but currently it is who is available and volunteers.

Representative Stuart explained that because there is a lot of work for the cooperating teacher, some may not want to volunteer.

She supported the idea that there needs to be more training for cooperating teachers.

Ms. Steans shared that there are many individuals who are tasked with being a cooperating teacher and that their training, if any, is greatly lacking and not consistent across schools.

Representative Stuart explained that all cooperating teachers have also gone through a teacher preparation program, so they have some knowledge of the student teaching process and the supports necessary for a student teacher.

Ms. Steans explained that although that is true, there is a major difference between teaching students and teaching adults, such as the student teacher.

Dr. McIntyre shared the qualifications necessary for a clinical supervisor and explained that these professionals are a critical part of the evaluation process.

Dr. Helfer called for any additional thoughts. Hearing none, he moved forward and shared a preview of the next meeting. He thanked Representative Stuart for clarifying the charge of the committee and helping to build understanding. He also thanked Dr.

Evans and other members for explaining the importance of the triad.

IV. Adjournment

Dr. Helfer asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Steans motioned for adjournment. Dr. Donovan seconded. All members present unanimously agreed to adjourn.

The motion was passed.

Meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

https://www.isbe.net/Documents_TPA/032524-Minutes.pdf