To leave a comment, or add to a comment, you must first sign in to the blog. To do so, click on "SIGN IN" under the followers pictures, or click on "LEAVE A COMMENT" at the bottom of page. You will be redirected to the comments page.
Please join in the conversation on issues related to Teacher Performance Assessment, the theme for the Spring, 09 issue of ITE.
1. What are the ways/best practices to structure programs to prepare pre-service teachers for the teaching performance assessment requirement?
2. What are the dangers with TPAs serving multiple functions as discussed by Jon Snyder in the opening article?
3. How can bias issues be “overcome” when faculty/instructors who oversee the development of teacher performance assessment responses are also the assessors for the TPA submissions?
4. How is/can the teaching performance be embedded in a credential program and what are the impacts on:
a. Structure of courses.
b. Instructional practices of credential faculty.
c. Instructional practices of pre-service teachers in the field.
5. What are your views about the emphasis on high stakes testing at all levels?
6. What is your opinion of national standards and a national test based on those standards for K 12 students? For teachers?
7. What are the most important data for a program to collect related to the teaching performance assessment?
3 comments:
I would like to know what anyone thinks about merit base pay based on testing score.
I've used videos with my students for almost 20 years but it doesn't replace face to face observations and supervision in real time. I give my students descriptive feedback similar to what you might expect of an ethnographer researching a new culture. I include what I see and hear, not just what a fixed camera would pick up. Often the "serendipidous" notes are more revealing and important to the student teacher's reflective practice than the straightforward t behaviors I've captured. If there is a person behind the camera directing the focus and picking up a range of data, that would resemble my work, though I think it would be stronger in some respects to capture the voice, non verbal communication and student participation patterns better than my scribbled notes. In my experience both face to face ethnographic note taking with post conferences, AND videod lessons are vital to high quality supervision.
I've been the PACT (Performance Assessment for California Teachers) coordinator for our credential program for our first three years of implementation. There have been both benefits and drawbacks. The biggest drawbacks are (1) the stress and overload for both candidates and faculty and (2) the crowding out of areas and issues that are not assessed. The benefits have been increased collaboration and some improvements in program practices.
Admittedly, the overload was already present in the credential program. The PACT has made it much worse, however.In Spring, when our PACT is scheduled, our candidates are teaching 3-5 hours a day, spending at least the same amount of time each day in prep and grading, attending 12-18 hours of classes each week, and spending another 12-18 hours studying. That adds up to 54-86 hours a week -- an almost impossible feat. In many cases, candidates are also managing families and/or side jobs. There is no way to keep up this pace over 3-4 months and things often start to slip . . . chapters unread, papers late, lessons unprepared. Adding the PACT, which is essentially a 50 page, tech intensive, original project, to the mix borders on suicidal. No matter how much we work to integrate it into our coursework, there is still additional work involved . . . which brings us to the second big drawback. PACT prep work has crowded out other important work. For example, our student teaching seminar courses used to focus on democratic schooling, lesson planning and classroom management. We still cover these topics but in much abbreviated form as PACT preparation has come to dominate the agenda.
That said, PACT has also brought certain benefits. By examining results, we have been able to identify certain areas in which our program needed improvement, for example, in identifying language demands. Preparing for the PACT also forced us to put more time and resources into key areas that formerly had been scanted: monitoring, assessment and academic language. Because we face a common and very high stakes challenge, we are also collaborating much more within the credential program, across departments, and even across institutions. We share ideas and materials, meet regularly, and make personal connections that can be called upon at need. The PACT affects the whole program and to effectively prepare candidates we must communicate. For example, by reviewing syllabi and talking with other instructors, I was able to see which of our projects overlapped (and could either do double duty or be eliminated) and which areas were not being adequately covered and should be added in. You can argue that we should have been doing this all along and I would certainly agree, but the reality of our busy lives is that without a powerful incentive (a carrot or a stick), it would not be happening.
The problem with PACT, of course, is that the incentive has very little of carrot about it and an awful lot of stick. The PACT was imposed on us with limited opportunities for input, limited choices about what we do, no fiscal support, and severe penalties for non-compliance (as in: no performance assessment means no credential and ultimately no program authorization). I appreciate the benefits I've seen, but we need to find a way to keep the good and leave behind the negative effects. For example, programs could be restructured to require more collaboration and review by building it into our contracts and workload. Each department would be able to choose its own directions and meet with other institutions to share ideas. This would require rethinking many things, but no more than we have already done for PACT. Collaboration and program review are excellent ideas, but not when the assessment program they are associated with crowds out critical topics, overstress students, and limits self determination.
Post a Comment