WACTE resolution document

 Resolutions approved unanimously by institutional representatives from all WACTE institutions: PESB / Stanford / Pearson response:
 We affirm the PESB intent to analyze the validity and reliability data prior to the edTPA becoming consequential. Approved 10.25.2012
Rationale: High quality assessment practice requires that predictive validity studies be conducted to verify that the edTPA is an accurate measurement of beginning teacher performance as it relates to student learning. 
 Timeline of Board discussion and actions leading to edTPA are located on PESB website at https://sites.google.com/a/pesb.wa.gov/assessment/assessments/edtpa  and will be updated as appropriate. All field test data will be reviewed by PESB’s TAC to ensure the assessment is reliable and valid. 
 Scorer comments must accompany scores. Approved 10.25.2012
Rationale: Scorer comments are essential for both program improvement, teacher candidate learning from the edTPA, and for remediation by those candidates who must resubmit parts of the edTPA. 
 The score report provided to candidates during operational will include rubric language descriptors that reflect the candidate’s performance (as scored) on all 18 rubrics.
There are potential legal issues if the actual scorer comments are given to candidates. These comments could be interpreted differently than the scorer’s intention. 
 Remove student voice from the WA edTPA. Approved 10.25.2012
Rationale: Not all standards are, or should be, measured on the edTPA. There are, and should be, other opportunities to measure this construct within programs.  Three rubrics over emphasize student voice in the edTPA and threaten the validity of the instrument.  The rubrics, as written, lend themselves to easily contrived responses. 
 Related to WACTE resolution #1, the Board will make no decisions related to consequentiality or weight of any component of the edTPA until the TAC and the Board have thoroughly reviewed relevant data and technical reporting.  
 Protocols outlining specific supports that can and cannot be provided to teacher candidates completing the edTPA are necessary; this includes considerations for both initial submission and retakes. Approved 10.25.2012
Rationale: There is variation in practice among programs in the support provided to candidates creating an “uneven playing field” across programs. Resources required of programs in order to provide allowable supports in an equitable manner across programs should be considered in developing this protocol. The current protocol needs revision that includes more detailed explanation of appropriate and inappropriate assistance.  
 The TPAC Online website includes several resources related to guidelines and protocols for supporting candidates during initial submission and retakes. Stanford has stated that these resources are in the process of being updated and are scheduled to be released in January 2013. The document, Making Good Choices, will also be updated and released in January.  This documents are in the edTPA Resource Series; edTPA 101.

2/6/13
Making Good Choices is now available and located at edTPA Resource 
Series
; edTPA 101.

3/19/13
Guidelines for Supporting Candidates Completing edTPA document is now available and located at edTPA Resource Series; edTPA 101. 
 Results on performance on the edTPA must be returned within two weeks of submission. Rolling submissions must be instituted. Approved 10.25.2012
Rationale: Due to the structure of approved Washington state programs, extended time between submitting the assessment and receiving results diminishes the usefulness of the assessment for candidate and program learning, and has the effect of increasing the emphasis on its use as an accountability measure. Rolling timelines are essential to accommodate the variance in approved program, as well as college and university structures, e.g. quarter systems, semester systems.  Lengthy scoring turn around and limited submission opportunities will result in the restructuring of programs to fit the logistical necessities of the assessment. 
 The proposed schedule for score reporting for the field test is based on a 30-day period following the close of a submission window. Pearson acknowledges that this may be longer than some people would like, and they will continue to review scoring window schedules to implement improvements to the time frame to the best of their ability.
PESB will continue to encourage Pearson to do everything possible to shorten turnaround time. 
 Recommendations: 
 PESB should increase efforts to inform P-12 stakeholders about the edTPA and the importance of this assessment in teacher preparation PESB staff will work with WEA, AWSP, and WASA to inform their members of edTPA requirements  and the importance of this assessment.  PESB staff will also add  information regarding state required assessments to the mentor training module on the PESB moodle site  (http://pesb.ospi.k12.wa.us/course/view.php?id=7).
 Resources and professional development are needed to support the edTPA as we move forward. WACTE stands ready to work with the board staff to help implement professional development.  Resources that support implementation of the edTPA are linked above.  Additional detail is requested on the professional development WACTE is envisioning. PESB-led PLCs?  PESB-designed online communities of practice where mentors and field supervisors can dialogue?  Regional communities of practice, e.g. the next step of a regional group like the Eastside Leadership Group on Co-teaching?  We look forward to hearing your ideas!
 There is ongoing concern about candidates prepared by out of state providers avoiding the edTPA. We recognize that this is a complex issue but request that we work together to develop solutions to the problem.  A 26-state consortium means that many of our providers approved in others states will be requiring the edTPA for candidates in order to maintain their home-state approval.  Beyond that the PESB can continue to examine emerging options. 
 Questions from WACTE since resolution 
 Will candidates be allowed to “bank “ entries? Answer from Stanford is:
“Banked” answers are tied to the passing standards decision, so it cannot be made until the passing standard meeting planned for June 2013. (email with response was received on 1/15/13)
 What accommodations will be available to candidates that have special needs? Pearson will have information regarding special accommodations for candidates that qualify for accommodations on the website once the assessment is fully operational. Accommodations will be granted on a case by case situation just as they are for any other assessments used in Washington.
 Will Pearson have any test fraud detection in place? Pearson and Stanford are reviewing this topic. An update will be given when a definitive answer is given. 
 Will there be a process in place for candidates that want to challenge their edTPA scores? Pearson and Stanford are reviewing this topic. An update will be given when a definitive answer is given. 
 Will Pearson make available vouchers for candidates that are in financial need?Pearson and Stanford are reviewing this topic. An update will be given when a definitive answer is given. 

If a candidates completes all but a few minor program requirements prior to the start of the edTPA being consequential, but actually gets recommended after the assessment becomes consequential then will the candidate's edTPA score still be valid?

During the field test, we have been using the quarter a candidate takes the edTPA determines whether the edTPA is consequential—not based on program completion. Once edTPA becomes consequential (at this time we are looking at it beginning Jan. 2014) it should be the same. Whenever a student takes the test not when they completed their program. It would be up to the institutions to keep record and keep those records according to their archiving schedule.

I think programs need clarification around the video capture permission forms. Some programs are facing a potential tsunami of permission forms that will need to be stored for... who knows how long. Can we find a way to minimize the paper? Might a single affidavit per candidate suffice?
For example, if all of my candidates were to provide me with signed permission forms from all of their students I might be looking at collecting and storing 4500 pieces of paper for multiple years. However, I might get away with 150 pieces of paper if I added a line to the current form my students sign. They would attest to the fact that their students’ families had been notified of the video requirements and provided the appropriate/required approval.

This has been taken care with the Declaration of Compliance Video Consent Forms and policy document. This is located on the website (http://assessment.pesb.wa.gov/assessments/edtpa ) and was signed by all Deans in Oct. 2012 and will be required to be signed annually. This form was reviewed and approved by our AG. It is up to the institutions on how they handle their policy and how they store and archive according to their institution’s schedule. If a school district already sends out a video consent form it is up to the institution and the school district to make the agreement that one form will be sent out and that the edTPA is covered by the form. PESB has recommended and will continue to recommend to have the agreement between the institution and the school district in written form.