This blog series planned to emphasize the explicit purpose
of the NYSTCE
tests. Collectively,
these exams help identify for certification those candidates who
have demonstrated the appropriate level of knowledge and skills considered important
for performing the responsibilities of an educator in New York State public
schools. As noted in previous blogposts, the NYSTCE tests, include the ALST, EAS, CST, and edTPA. These trailing indicators of
success
require a demonstration of the appropriate level of knowledge
and skills expected a beginning teacher.
As with any assessment system, by extension the NYSTCE tests evaluate
teacher preparation programs,
requiring institutions and programs to monitor and adjust their leading indicators of success.
The failure of teacher preparation
programs to address reform of their
leading
indicators for effective teacher preparation resulted in the need for this blog series to address
the unintended consequences rather than the tests
alone. Reform efforts cannot be to content alone. Innovative teacher preparation programs exhibit balanced support between development of the teacher
candidate’s pedagogy, promotion of the teacher candidate’s active inquiry, and engagement
of faculty across the disciplines. This endeavor raises
expectations for critical thinking, professionalism, and self-efficacy. Monitoring and adjusting these leading
indicators of success requires a clear mission, action-based vision, and systemic
reform.
Aiming to ease entry into teaching, nearly every state and
the District of Columbia either delays or bypasses some teacher preparation requirements
demanded by traditional university-based preparation programs (NAE, 2008). Since 2002, “Urban Teacher Residency”(UTR) programs, have become an increasingly
popular a third option for teacher preparation after initially being introduced
in Boston, Chicago, and Denver. UTR has
attracted public and philanthropic investment.
These practice-based preparation program require a teacher candidate to work
alongside a mentor teacher for a year before becoming a teacher of record. UTR programs exhibit more racial and ethnic diversity
as well as far greater retention rates.
However, a study
of the Boston UTR found only modest student achievement attributable to the
program (Papay, West, et al., 2011).
The
greatest impact of the “third-rail” innovative UTR programs may result from the
reform conversations at university-based teacher preparation programs. Practice-based training models, inspired a panel
commissioned by the National Center for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to
endorse “programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice and interwoven
with academic content and professional courses” (NCATE,
2010, p. ii). The report recommended
“sweeping changes in how we deliver, monitor, evaluate, oversee, and staff clinically
based preparation to nurture a whole new form of teacher education” (p. iii).
This
blogpost series continues to address the need to develop the aforementioned
skills desired of effective teachers through a focus upon improving the leading
indicators of success. However, many
teacher preparation programs may erroneously focus upon one trailing indicator:
the edTPA. "The edTPA is designed to align with the
authentic teaching practice of the teacher candidate" (SCALE, 2014). There are 607 Educator Preparation Programs
in 33 states and the District of Columbia currently participating in the edTPA. New York State, intends for the edTPA to be “a
student-centered multiple measure assessment of teaching. It is designed to be educative and predicting
of effective teaching and student learning” (NYSTCE, 2014). Unfortunately, the New York State rollout of
the edTPA resulted in reports that NYSED once again advocated for “a rushed,
rather than a fair and effective, rollout” (Pinto,
2014).
NYSED requires that a teacher preparation program be “responsible
for providing instruction sufficient to ensure all candidates are adequately
prepared for certification” (2014,
p.7). Despite the $10 million Race
to the Top investment to support SUNY, CUNY and the Commission on Independent
Colleges and Universities (cIcu) in this endeavor, the focus remains on NYSTCE test
results for rating teacher
preparation programs. Proposed federal
regulations will require states to classify their teacher-preparation programs
into four categories: from low-performing to high-performing. The rating will be weighed in part on
outcomes indicators that include: surveys of graduates and school districts, teacher
placement and retention rates, and results of the teacher candidate’s competency
exams.
Teacher education preparation practices
are now very different compared to a generation ago. Undoubtedly, accountability is now the most
emphasized element in efforts to promote effective and sustained educational
reform efforts. Accountability requirements
within legislation such as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB, 2002) and IDEA
(2004) created the impetus for sustained change efforts within education. However, poor communication and rushed
timelines during the implementation of more stringent accountability
requirements resulted in well-documented unintended consequences. Significant to this reality was that the fear
of failure became the single most powerful force of change.
Without the time for careful
development of the leading indicators for success assessed through NYSTCE
tests, teacher preparation programs will be subject to unintended
consequences. As an authentic
assessment of actual practice exhibited by the teacher candidate, the edTPA
should encourage teacher preparation programs to promote carefully planned
lessons that exhibit differentiated instruction to diverse learners that allow promotes
progress monitoring of learning.
To begin the process of developing teacher
competencies that sustain professional success and learning for all, teacher
preparation programs seeking to be highly performing need to utilize an aligned
lesson plan. An aligned
lesson plan will elicit every teacher candidate’s understanding of: the learning
context; the (Common Core) standards for learning; the connection to learning;
the group’s measurable learning objective; the central focus for the group; the
differentiation of instruction; any focus learner’s primary learning target; the
needs for instructional supports; how to incorporate academic language; the
range of diverse instructional strategies; and reliable assessment of learning
that is linked to the measurable learning objective. Therefore, the measurable learning objective
is a foundation for any lesson. An effective
teacher preparation programs will not ask, “How do we help our students pass
the edTPA?” By contrast, using a formative
and summative perspective, an effective teacher preparation program is confident
its students mastered how to develop measurable learning objectives and the
other areas of the aligned lesson plan.
An effective teacher preparation
program emphasizes the reality that an action research approach is essential
for sustaining success. Through curriculum
mapping and a respect for learning progressions (Idol
& West, 1993), an effective teacher preparation program ensures the
establishment of solid learning outcomes for its preparation course work. Once these three reforms are in place, sweeping changes in how to deliver,
monitor, evaluate, oversee, and staff a clinically-based preparation program
can begin.
An effective teacher preparation
program not only knows what is needed to creates a solid foundation for future
pedagogical success but ensures this foundation is mastered by its teacher
candidates. An effective program is
reflective, data-driven, and nurtures innovation. Therefore, it reinforces the
concept of defined
autonomy (Marzano and Waters, 2009) while sustaining teacher candidate success
through the development of competencies that are essential for an effective
educator rather than focusing upon passing a set of teacher tests
Anderson, C.J. (March 31, 2015) The focus of effective teacher preparation programs: Teacher
competencies that
