1. National Conference on Student Assessment
The InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: Defining What Effective Teaching Looks Like Today
National Conference on Student Assessment
June 19, 2011

2. Presenters Kathleen Paliokas Carlene Kirkpatrick
Director, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC)
Carlene Kirkpatrick
Instructional Coach, DeKalb County Schools, Georgia
National Board Certified Teacher (EA Mathematics)
Served on the InTASC Model Core Standards Update Committee

3. Growth Opportunities & Supports High Quality Instruction & Leadership
Student Success
Growth Opportunities & Supports
High Quality Instruction & Leadership
Educator & System Accountability
Core Teaching Standards
Professional Development Standards
Common Core State Standards for Students
Data Standards
School Leader Standards 3

5. InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards Update Process
Original standards released in 1992
Revision conducted by expert panel that included:
Practicing teachers
Higher education faculty who prepare educators
State education agency staff
Funding contributed by Educational Testing Service (ETS), Evaluation Systems of Pearson, National Education Association (NEA)
A companion policy document was released with the standards

6. Key Changes from the 1992 Standards
Developmental Continuum: Standards no longer just for beginning teachers but ALL teachers.
INTASC becomes InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support)
A Focus on 21st Century Knowledge and Skills: Problem solving, curiosity, creativity, innovation, communication, interpersonal skills, the ability to synthesize across disciplines, global literacy, ethics, and technological expertise.
Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners: Teachers need knowledge and skills to customize learning for learners with a range of individual differences.

7. Key Changes to Standards (continued)
Increased Emphasis on Assessment Literacy: Teachers need to have greater knowledge and skill around how to develop a range of assessments and how to use assessment data to improve instruction and support learner success.
A Collaborative Professional Culture: Teaching is not a private act.
New Leadership Roles for Teachers and Administrators:
A shift in leadership from teachers working autonomously in their classrooms to administrators, teachers, and others sharing leadership roles and responsibilities for student learning.

8. Groupings of Standards
The Learner and Learning
Standard #1: Learner Development
Standard #2: Learning Differences
Standard #3: Learning Environments
Content
Standard #4: Content Knowledge
Standard #5: Application of Content

9. Groupings of Standards
Instructional Practice
Standard #6: Assessment
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies
Professional Responsibility
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration

10. Key Cross-Cutting Themes in Updated InTASC Standards
Knowledge
Disposition
Performance
*Collaboration
3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 5(p), 10(f),
1(k), 3(k), 3(l), 3(nm),
1(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 5(f), 6(b),
10(h)
5(v), 6(m), 7(l), 8(s), 9(l),
7(a), 8(b), 8(c), 9(a-c), 9(e), 10(a),
10(k), 10(l)
10(b), 10(c), 10(d)
*Communication
3(i), 3(j), 5(o), 6(j), 8(o)
3(o), 3(n), 6(o), 8(u)
3(b), 3(e), 5(e), 5(f), 6(c), 8(h),
8(i), 8(j), 10(e)
*Creativity/innovation
5(k), 5(q), 8(l), 8(o)
3(m), 5(v)
5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 6(g), 8(k), 9(f)
*Critical thinking, problem solving
4(h), 5(j), 5(n), 6(k), 8(l), 8(n)
4(n), 5(s), 8(r)
4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 5(g),
5(h), 6(d), 8(f), 8(g), 8(k), 9(b)
Cultural competence
1(g), 2(i), 2(l), 2(m), 3(i), 4(k), 5(r), 7(f), 8(m)
3(n), 4(m), 5(v), 5(w), 7(f), 8(t),
2(f), 3(e), 5(h), 9(c)

11. InTASC Teaching Standards Linked to Common Core Students Standards
CCSS Mathematics

12. Dissemination and Public Comment Feedback
Broad outreach – press release, blasts, online survey, focus groups, blogs, twitter, briefing of executive directors of national associations
Public comment ended early November 2010
Raw numbers
104 online surveys completed (+400 partials) – 36 states
325 people participated in 23 focus groups
Numerous ad hoc messages and formal letters
Synthesis and analysis completed and changes incorporated

13. Public Comment Feedback
Critical General Comments
Standards too broad to be useful
Redundant and wordy, too many indicators
Need to give more weight to accountability and outcomes
This is status quo – would have been cutting edge a decade ago
Teacher leadership needs to be more explicit – it is more than collaboration
Lack of specific reference to students with disabilities is a weakness

14. Changes to Public Comment Draft
Strengthened teacher leadership expectations
#10 renamed to Leadership and Collaboration
Strengthened ongoing learning of teachers
#9 renamed to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Strengthened assessment literacy further
Called out formative and summative
Added learner capacity to evaluate his/her own progress

15. Changes to Public Comment Draft
Added explicit language tied to Common Core
Learning progressions, sequencing, stronger accountability language for outcomes
Added teacher will assure “mastery of content” to stem of #4, added “performance against standards” in indicators of #4
Clarified accommodation and differentiation language
Added a glossary of key terms

16. Next Steps
Work with states to move the standards into policy and practice
Identify with states key tools and resources to be developed
Developmental continuum aligned to the standards
Model rubric and indicators aligned to the standards
Comprehensive website with video clips aligned to the standards
Meet with partners around the companion paper, Implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards for State Policy

18. Policy Implications
Taking the standards to the next level of grain size – what does that look like?
Developmental Continuum
Assessment at key transition points
End of Pre-service – TPAC as one example
NBPTS – accomplished teaching
What does tier 2 or professional license assessment look like?

19. Policy Implications Reform in Preparation
Program approval/accreditation as leverage
Clinical practice
Ongoing Professional Learning
New collaborative culture and use of data
Teacher Evaluation
Defining “effectiveness”
Student growth and multiple measures

20. State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE)
CCSSO is well situated to lead systemic approach
Goal is implementation of standards-driven coherent systems of educator effectiveness
Three areas of focus
Standards for Learning, Teaching and Leading
Professional Growth and Support for Teaching and Leading
Evaluating Teaching and Leading
Incorporates InTASC and SCEL within a larger umbrella
28 states have joined SCEE and named 6-member teams
SCEE provides states with a forum for sharing via
Monthly webinars
Collaborative work site
National summit
Regional/topical meetings

22. SCEE Summit
1st SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness was held April in Washington DC
6 breakout strands
Preparation
Tiered licensure
Teacher evaluation
Leader evaluation
Professional development
Systems change
Note: The June 14 SCEE webinar will provide a summary of the breakout strand discussions (

23. SCEE Summit Feedback Regarding each strand, states would like
To know what other states are doing
Models, tools, lessons learned
To know how to integrate “effectiveness” (e.g., student growth) into all aspects of the system
To know what the research tells us about the impact of different strategies

24. Please go to: www.ccsso.org/intasc
For More Information
Please go to:
Free PDF of standards
Bound copies can be ordered from Amazon
Free PDF of State Policy Implications paper
Research base is available

25. Contact Information
Kathleen Paliokas
Carlene Kirkpatrick