WEA Response to PPA-C Work Group

**Draft response**

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: PESB PPA-C Work Group: http://assessment.pesb.wa.gov/home/wk-grps/ppa-c-info

In a A November 14th email you frames the initial agenda times for discussion during your meetings that day. We begin by offering general feedback on these two discussion prompts: 

1. This question seeks clarification on creating an instrument to use for licensure purposes (adding an endorsement is considered a part of licensure as it is added to a teacher’s certificate. The certificate is their license to teach), that is based on criteria that was developed for teacher evaluation purposes. If we use the TPEP State 8 criteria to determine if a teacher can enhance their license, the question seeks clarification because the State 8 criteria was developed for teacher evaluation- not licensure.

2. At issue here is the PESB, the Legislature, the State Board of Education and hiring School District’s positions on wanting teacher preparation programs to exit more candidates with multiple endorsements. The current requirement is that they only need one endorsement to exit. Increasing the number of teachers with multiple endorsements supports greater capacity in the educator workforce. One concern is that preservice candidates might choose to exit programs with only one endorsement because they may feel the edTPA is more involved and more costly than completing a the PPA-C once they have been certified.

In reference to issue #1, we reinforce and support the point that the evaluation criteria remain separate and distinct from the licensure process. While making connections between the two sets of criteria may be helpful for alignment purposes, it is important that relationships not be formalized between the two as they are processes established with different purposes. The more relevant scaffolded standards would be the Residency and Professional Certification standards. WEA cannot support a licensure requirement/criteria that is identical to an evaluation criteria. The legal conflicts would make both processes difficult.

In reference to issue #2, you summarize well the tension that exists between encouraging multiple endorsements and the cost/workload of additional licensure requirements. To reiterate previous testimony, WEA does not support requiring more than one edTPA for pre-service candidates. The cost and workload implications are simply unrealistic for future educators.

Further feedback based on documented materials:
WEA supports an examination of the PPA for the purpose of better meeting the needs of veteran educators to create a revised PPA-C. Our review of the committee notes and materials yields no concerns, beyond the caution noted previously about the appropriate boundaries between teacher evaluation criteria and licensure standards. Perhaps a similar analysis of alignment vis-à-vis Residency and Professional Certification standards would also be relevant?