1. CalTPA Coordinators’ Meeting National University April 8, 2016 Commission on Teacher Credentialing

2. Welcome! Wayne Bacer, TPA Consultant, PSD Wayne Bacer, TPA Consultant, PSD Phyllis Jacobson, Administrator of Examinations and Research, PSD Phyllis Jacobson, Administrator of Examinations and Research, PSD Amy Reising, Director of Performance Assessments Development Amy Reising, Director of Performance Assessments Development 2

3. Today’s Agenda Welcome and Introductions Welcome and Introductions Overview of the Commission’s Accreditation System strengthening and streamlining activities Overview of the Commission’s Accreditation System strengthening and streamlining activities Scope of Work for Updating the CalTPA Scope of Work for Updating the CalTPA Lunch Lunch Focus Groups with Evaluation Systems Focus Groups with Evaluation Systems Whole Group Q & A Whole Group Q & A 3

4. Accreditation Update 4

5. Starting From the Beginning Accreditation Updating Project 2014-16: Why?  System too Heavily Focused on Inputs  Standards are Too Dense  Too much narrative gets in the way  Relies too heavily on large numbers of volunteers  Data used to determine quality is inconsistent quality is inconsistent 5

6. 6 Accreditation Panel Work Commission appointed 6 Subgroups 1)Preliminary Standards (MS/SS, SPED) 2)Induction Standards and Policy 3)Performance Assessments (Teaching and Administrative) 4)Outcomes (surveys) 5)Accreditation Process and Policies 6)Accreditation Advisory Panel (cohesiveness)

7. Some Aspects of the New System Continued expectation that programs review candidate competence and program effectiveness data in an ongoing manner Continued expectation that programs review candidate competence and program effectiveness data in an ongoing manner Document review streamlined Document review streamlined Preconditions reviewed more often Preconditions reviewed more often Differentiate length of time between site visits for institutions needing greater oversight Differentiate length of time between site visits for institutions needing greater oversight Stronger reliance on outcomes data. Stronger reliance on outcomes data. 7

8. How Does The Accreditation Work Relate to the TPA? As part of the Standards Revision work:  Revised TPA Assessment Design Standards adopted  Revised TPA Program Implementation Standards adopted  Transition timeline for TPA Models and Programs proposed 8

9. Relationship to the TPA, cont.  Teaching Performance Expectations Revised, currently undergoing validity study  All TPA models will need to meet revised Assessment Design Standards  RFP process completed for a contractor to help redevelop the CalTPA 9

10. What’s New in the Assessment Design Standards? Clarifies implementation responsibilities for administration (program) and for scoring (contractor-supervised) Clarifies implementation responsibilities for administration (program) and for scoring (contractor-supervised) Clarifies centralized and local scoring options Clarifies centralized and local scoring options Clarifies 3 week maximum turnaround time for scoring Clarifies 3 week maximum turnaround time for scoring 10

11. Assessment Design Standards, cont. Supervised scoring by contractor will provide valid and reliable outcomes for candidates, programs, and the Commission Supervised scoring by contractor will provide valid and reliable outcomes for candidates, programs, and the Commission Standardizes scoring processes for candidates and programs Standardizes scoring processes for candidates and programs 11

12. What’s New in the Program Implementation Standards? Clarifies model sponsor responsibilities such as determining assessor qualifications, training, and scoring reliability Clarifies model sponsor responsibilities such as determining assessor qualifications, training, and scoring reliability Clarifies program responsibilities relative to local scoring option Clarifies program responsibilities relative to local scoring option Clarifies acceptable and non-acceptable candidate support activities Clarifies acceptable and non-acceptable candidate support activities 12

13. Accreditation Focus on Outcomes Data The new accreditation system focuses more heavily on outcomes data: Data Dashboards will draw from a range of data sources to produce program-level data dashboardsData Dashboards will draw from a range of data sources to produce program-level data dashboards Will include aggregate TPA data in the futureWill include aggregate TPA data in the future Less reliance on paperwork to identify qualityLess reliance on paperwork to identify quality 13

14. 14 Annual Data Submission Data Warehouse 2017-18Data Warehouse 2017-18 Updated annually Updated annually Staff review at identified intervals Staff review at identified intervals Competency and demographic data Competency and demographic data Survey data Survey data Informs program strengths and weaknessesInforms program strengths and weaknesses

15. Timeline Anticipated full implementation of updated TPA models, including the CalTPA: 2017-18 How do we get from here to there????? 15

16. A Walk Down Memory Lane: TPA Implementation 1998-2015 1998 - SB 2042 - TPA required for earning a teaching credential (multiple models allowed by statute (EC 44320.2) 1998 - SB 2042 - TPA required for earning a teaching credential (multiple models allowed by statute (EC 44320.2) Standards for the design and implementation of multiple TPA models adopted. Standards for the design and implementation of multiple TPA models adopted. 4 approved models currently in use: CalTPA, PACT, FAST, and edTPA. 4 approved models currently in use: CalTPA, PACT, FAST, and edTPA. 16

17.  CTC-approved TPA mandatory July 1, 2008  2014 - Revisions to the TPA Design Standards to guide revisions to approved TPA models and any new models  2015 - State Budget provides the Commission with funding over FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 to support revisions to the CalTPA as well as the development of a new program-route Administrator Performance Assessment (APA) 17

18.  2015 – RFP issued for prospective contractors to work with the Commission to revise the CalTPA  Contractor’s role is to provide technical expertise working with California experts and to administer and score the revised CalTPA (centralized and local scoring options)  2016 – Educational Services group of Pearson awarded the contract to help revise the CalTPA 18

19. Updated Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) 2016 2014 - Preliminary Standards Work Group addressed revisions to the TPEs 2014 - Preliminary Standards Work Group addressed revisions to the TPEs Revisions include: Revisions include: o Use of emerging technology o Integrating use of visual and performing arts across the curriculum o Updated approaches to classroom management, including restorative justice and related concepts 19

20. 20  Developing students’ critical, creative, and analytic thinking  More emphasis on candidate ability to work effectively with special needs students in the general education classroom  Purposefully closely aligned with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession

21. Why Align TPEs Closely with the CSTP?  To achieve greater coherence and continuity between:  Initial preparation  Induction  Professional development  Ongoing development over a teacher’s career  Maybe combine into one document 21

22. Next Steps for the Updated TPEs  A validity study of the TPEs (going on now)  The TPEs will be revised if needed and brought back to the Commission for adoption  Sponsors of teacher preparation programs will need to revise their programs in response to the updated TPEs 22

23. 23  Approved TPA model sponsors will also need to revise and update their TPA models to align with the Commission’s TPA Assessment Design Standards, including assessing the updated TPEs.  The Commission will review and approve TPA models that meet the updated Assessment Design Standards

24. Updating the CalTPA: The Scope of Work  Reminder: What the Teaching Performance Assessment Must Measure  All teaching performance assessments in California must assess the proficiency of candidates for a Preliminary Multiple or Single Subject Teaching Credential relative to the California Teaching Performance Expectations. 24

25.  Component I: Conduct Validity Study of the Revised TPEs  Component II: Redevelop the CalTPA  Component II, Activity 1: Redevelop the Tasks of the CalTPA  Component II, Activity 2: Redevelop the Scoring Rubrics for CalTPA 25

26.  Component II, Activity 3: Design, Develop, and Implement Pilot and Field Testing of the CalTPA Tasks and Scoring System  Component II, Activity 4: Redevelop Candidate and Program Materials  Component II, Activity 5: Recruit CalTPA Scorers for Pilot and Field Testing of the CalTPA  Component II, Activity 6: Redevelop Scorer Training, Calibration, and Recalibration Processes  Centralized and Local Scoring Options 26

27. 27  Component II, Activity 6A: Training of CalTPA Scorers  Component II, Activity 6B: Training of Trainers of CalTPA Scorers

28.  Component III: Design Online Candidate Registration and Materials Submission Systems and an Online Scoring and Reporting System for the CalTPA  Component III, Activity 1: Design an Online Candidate Registration System for CalTPA  Component III, Activity 2: Design an Online Candidate Materials Submission System for the CalTPA 28

29. 29  Component III, Activity 3: Design an Online Scoring System for the CalTPA  Component III, Activity 4: Design an Online Reporting System for the CalTPA

30.  Component IV: Administration and Scoring of the CalTPA for an initial period of two years  Component IV, Activity 1: Candidate Registration Process, Policies and Procedures  CalTPA Operational Website  Privacy Requirements and Considerations  Communications with Candidates 30

31.  Component IV, Activity 2: Design and Implement a Scorer Recruitment System to Assure a Sufficient Number and Range of Discipline- Specific California Scorers of TPA Submissions  Component IV, Activity 3: Provide Ongoing Oversight of Training of California Scorers for the CalTPA, including Ongoing Training, Calibration, and Recalibration Activities to Assure a Consistent Cadre of Trained Scorers 31

32.  Component IV, Activity 4: Design and Implement a System for the Assignment of Candidate Materials to Scorers for both the Centralized and the Local Scoring Options  Component IV, Activity 5: Implement and Provide Oversight for the Online Scoring of Candidate Materials 32

33.  CalTPA Tasks Data File  Component IV, Activity 6: Design and Implement an Appeals Process for Candidates, including a Rescore Process  Component IV, Activity 7: Design and implement an outcomes reporting system that is responsive to candidate, program, and Commission-identified data needs 33

34. Lunch 34

35. Focus Groups with with Evaluation Systems 35

36. Q and A 36

37. Thank You for your participation And Thank You to National University for hosting today’s CalTPA Coordinators’ Meeting 37