Hello Mea and Patti,
Thank you for offering WEA the opportunity to provide feedback on the documents created by the edTPA Alignment Work Group and the PPA-C Work Group.
We thank the two work groups for detailed, thoughtful analyses. WEA appreciate PESB’s ongoing commitment to creating aligned performance-based assessment structures, while at the same time being mindful of the cost and workload issues on pre-service educators.
This feedback represents the thoughts and perspectives of us as WEA staff, informed by our past work with our pre-service members and our ongoing work with PESB. Unfortunately, given limited staffing and resources, we were unable to pull together a focus group meeting of Student WEA members before the December 13th feedback target. If there is still a perceived benefit of edTPA completer feedback for ongoing reviews, we welcome the opportunity to partner with PESB staff to coordinate a focus group feedback session with our SWEA members in anticipation of your March, 2013 meeting.
Here are our thoughts for your consideration based on the information the two work groups:
FEEDBACK: edTPA Alignment Work Group http://assessment.pesb.wa.gov/home/wk-grps/align-tble-info
The following are thoughts in response to the alignment tables. We provide feedback on the four tabs in the document:
· Pathways tab: No issues or concerns with proposed alignment
· Related tab: No issues or concerns with proposed alignment
· Somewhat related tab: We’re unclear why certain fields are blank, with no recommendations about the appropriate edTPA or placement (Elem Ed to ELL; Elem Ed to ML math, science, humanities; ELL and other pairings; Health/Fitness; special education) We also wonder in the Elementary Education + Middle Level (Math, Science, Humanities) why the recommended student teaching placement be at the middle level? We wonder if this would provide sufficient exposure/experience to practicum experiences for future K-6 generalists?
· Considerations: No issues or concerns with proposed alignment