Software to Indict Plagiarists and the edTPA

Remember that memo that Deputy Commissioner John D’Agati of New York State’s Education Department wrote back in July about what would happen to candidates of questionable moral character caught cheating on the edTPA? Here’s a piece to refresh your memory:

“As part of the edTPA scoring process, originality detection software is employed to compare all edTPA submissions nationwide against all other edTPA submissions received, including outside written sources and other sources of material. The software reports any substantial degree of matching between submitted edTPA portfolios. In cases where there is substantial matching, a specially trained portfolio reviewer may then elect to seek enforcement action against the candidate(s) involved and/or refer the candidate(s) to the State Education Department for enforcement action.” (7-23-15)

Now there’s another memo released a few days ago, and the originality detection software used at my college, called Safe Assign, picked up a 46% match! See if you can figure out why:

“It is important that candidates be made aware that, as part of the edTPA submission process, originality detection software is employed to compare all edTPA submissions against all new submissions, including outside written sources and other sources of material. In cases where there is substantial matching, a candidate’s edTPA score may be voided, and the candidate may not be eligible for the edTPA Safety Net. In cases when candidates have already received their teaching certificate, the Department may seek revocation of the certificate. Candidates will be given the opportunity to appeal a decision to void their scores, and that process will be explained in any communication they would receive if their score is voided.” (10-28-15)

All that’s really new in the latest memo is an acknowledgement that candidates should not be prevented from collaborating with each other pursuant to SCALE’s guidelines regarding acceptable forms of support, which was revised in April of 2014 after some questioned the extent to which peers were permitted to help each other through the edTPA process (I wrote about that too). In that document, SCALE stated the obvious: “within their coursework and key program assignments and activities, candidates receive feedback from instructors and fellow candidates.” Professor Laura Davies, in a thoughtful essay on the first D’Agati memo and the questioning of originality in the edTPA process from September 23^rd  raises important issues about the harmful unintended consequences of generating so much fear regarding collaboration, a prominent feature of the work of teaching in a profession that suffers from teachers’ isolation from each other.

Recently the first significant empirical study of the edTPA rollout in New York and Washington was published, and among the findings of Meuwissen and Choppin is confirmation that candidates, desperate for clarity and help navigating the complex handbook instructions and rubric guides to ensure a passing score on the edTPA, have found clever secretive ways to get and give support to each other, mostly through social networking. Candidates interviewed in the study also mediated support tensions in their placements in schools, which can place considerable constraints on the teaching they do for the edTPA. Just working out the logistics of which students will be videotaped, what curriculum will be used, and when and where to do the taping is a source of stress and despair more often than not in my own experience with student teachers.

Now imagine the candidate that finally submits an edTPA portfolio, believing to have properly cited the use of the school’s curriculum in the lesson plans and commentary, turning up a high percentage of matching in the originality detection software used by scorers at Pearson. Theoretically such a portfolio is flagged and sent to a specialist to determine the degree of culpable intentionality in the presumed crime. Similarly, imagine a candidate being flagged by the software for using common phrases and routine descriptions in the commentaries that are similarly flagged by the software as matching other text. Alan Singer addressed this problem here. The software doesn’t judge, that’s up to a specialist at Pearson. But how exactly does that specialist make a judgment, one that could jeopardize employment, either due to delays in receiving a score, or due to a guilty verdict where none is merited?

What’s more, why would ANY candidate agree to allow the edTPA portfolio to be used by SCALE, Pearson, or the college or university, when there is a risk that at some point some stranger could plagiarize from that portfolio without the knowledge of the author, and that author could be subjected to having his or her license revoked?

While we’re considering what is legally unfair about all of this, have a look at the fine print regarding candidate’s compliance with edTPA rules (italics are mine):

From edTPA.com site:

“edTPA Rules of Assessment Participation

COMPLIANCE WITH ASSESSMENT RULES

By registering for edTPA, you are agreeing to abide by the current Rules of Assessment Participation for edTPA and all rules, procedures, and policies contained on the current edTPA.com website and/or in the current edTPA Handbook for the content area for which you have registered.

For the purpose of these Rules of Assessment Participation, the following definitions apply:

•       "Evaluation Systems." Evaluation Systems, a business of NCS Pearson, Inc. (referred to throughout as Evaluation Systems).

•       "Program." The educator preparation program in which an edTPA candidate is enrolled as indicated by the candidate at the time of registration.

•       "State Agency." The educator certification agency in any state in which an edTPA candidate is pursuing certification with this assessment.

Rules of Assessment Participation for edTPA

1     PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT: I understand that this assessment is administered for the purpose of fulfilling a program requirement and/or a state teacher licensure requirement and is only to be taken by individuals to fulfill such requirement(s). I certify that I am taking this assessment for which I have registered, to fulfill a program requirement or for the purpose of teacher licensure.

2     ORIGINALITY OF SUBMISSION: I understand that by submitting my edTPA materials, I am confirming that I am the person who has completed the assessment, that I have primary responsibility for teaching the students/class during the learning segment profiled in this assessment, that the video clip(s) submitted show me teaching the students/class profiled, that the student work included in the documentation is that of my students and completed during the learning segment documented in this assessment, that I am the sole author of the commentaries and other written responses to prompts and other requests for information in this assessment, and that I have cited all materials in the assessment whose sources are from published text, the internet, or other educators.

3     PERMISSIONS AND CONFIDENTIALITY: I understand that I am responsible for obtaining appropriate permissions from the parents/guardians of my students and from adults that appear on the video clip(s) I submit. I agree to produce such permissions if requested after I submit my assessment. I have ensured confidentiality of individuals appearing in the video clip(s) I submit by uploading the video only to the designated Pearson ePortfolio system, an integrated third party edTPA Platform Provider system, or other secure system designated by my program. I understand that I may use my assessment materials according to the parameters of the release forms obtained for children and/or adults who appear in the video. Because parents/guardians and/or adults have not typically granted permission for public use of the videos in which they or their children appear, I will not display videos publicly (i.e., personal websites, YouTube, Facebook) without expressed permission for this purpose from those featured in the video.

4     ASSESSMENT MATERIALS: I acknowledge that I am not permitted to reproduce or share any of the information or materials from edTPA handbooks or support materials (Making Good Choices or other materials with Stanford copyright) for commercial purposes. If I do reproduce information or materials from the edTPA handbooks or related materials for personal use, I will properly attribute the copyright of such materials to Stanford University.

5     USE OF ASSESSMENT: I agree that my edTPA submission, including text, graphics, digital files and video or audio recordings, without the use of my name or other identifying information, may be used by Stanford University and/or Evaluation Systems edTPA program development and implementation, including scorer training associated with the program. If I provided consent as part of my response to registration questions, my submission, without use of my name or other identifying information, may also be used for continued edTPA program activities conducted by Stanford University and/or Evaluation Systems such as future validity and reliability studies of the edTPA. Stanford University and Evaluation Systems will not show candidate materials publicly, make them available in a non-secure way, or use them as exemplars for marketing purposes.

6     SCORE REPORTING AND CANCELLATION: I understand that my results will be reported to me; to the program authorized by me during registration and/or State Agency, if applicable; and to any other institution, entity, or person authorized or required by law to receive this information. edTPA results are anonymously provided to SCALE with candidate responses to registration background questions which address edTPA placement context and demographics of edTPA candidates, including educator preparation program and state affiliation, for the purpose of edTPA assessment analyses and assessment development. edTPA results received by SCALE will not include candidate name or other personally identifying information such as date of birth or partial social security number. I understand that any information provided as part of registration may be used to report scores or to contact me regarding assessment- or program-related issues. Once I submit my assessment, I cannot cancel the scoring or score reporting.

7     CONFORMITY WITH PROCEDURES: I understand that if my submitted artifacts, videos, and/or related documentation do not conform to the current rules, requirements and polices as specified in the edTPA Assessment Handbook, and the edTPA website, my submission or portions thereof may not be scored, my score may be voided and other actions as described in Rule 11 may be taken as deemed appropriate by Evaluation Systems, my program, and/or State Agency. If my complete submission or portions thereof cannot be scored because it does not conform to requirements, no refund of my fee will be issued, and no portion of my fee can be applied to the cost of any future edTPA registration or associated services. If my submission cannot be scored due to a system error occurring after submission, I will have the opportunity to resubmit my portfolio without paying additional fees. I understand that my submitted assessment materials, or a portion thereof, may be reviewed by authorized individuals at the program in which I am enrolled, as indicated at the time of registration, and/or the relevant State Agency responsible for educator certification in order to investigate compliance with the Rules of Assessment Participation, as needed.

8     RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS REGARDING edTPA: I understand and agree that liability for assessment activities, including but not limited to the adequacy or accuracy of assessment materials, of the registration processes, of scoring, of score reports, of information provided to me in connection with edTPA and the adequacy of protection of candidate information, will be limited to score correction or edTPA retake at no additional fee. I understand and agree that liability for data loss or file corruption associated with my edTPA submission will be limited to an additional edTPA submission at no additional fee. I waive any and all rights to all other claims, specifically including but not limited to claims for negligence arising out of any acts or omissions of Stanford University, Evaluation Systems, and/or the state or program which is requiring completion of the edTPA (including the agents, employees, contractors, or professional advisors of Stanford University, Evaluation Systems, or such entity).

9     PROGRAM CHANGES: I understand that the edTPA assessment and associated policies and procedures are subject to change at the sole discretion of Stanford University and Evaluation Systems. State Agencies or individual programs may make changes to their policies and requirements related to the edTPA at their discretion.

10    OBJECTION TO PROCEDURES: If, for any reason, I object to the procedures presented in these Rules of Assessment Participation, I must advise Evaluation Systems, in writing, of the basis of my objection at least six (6) weeks before I plan to register for edTPA for my objection to be taken under consideration. If my objection is not honored, I will not be registered for edTPA.

11     COMPLIANCE: I understand that if I fail to comply with the rules, requirements, and policies specified or referenced on the current edTPA website, including these Rules of Assessment Participation, or if I take any prohibited actions, my results may be voided, no refund will be issued, no portion of the assessment fee can be applied toward the cost of any future assessment fees, my registration may be canceled, I may be prohibited in the future from registering for edTPA. Legal proceedings and actions may be pursued as well as other remedies deemed appropriate by Evaluation Systems, my program or State Agency, as appropriate. In addition, I understand that assessment fraud may be grounds for denial, revocation and/or suspension of a teaching license.

RULES: I understand that should any of these rules or any other requirement or provision contained on the current edTPA.com website be declared or determined by any court to be illegal or invalid, the remaining rules, requirements, and provisions will not be affected and the illegal or invalid rule, requirement, or provision shall not be deemed a part of the current edTPA website. The headings of each of the Rules of Assessment Participation for edTPA are for convenient reference only. They are not a part of the rules themselves; they do not necessarily reflect the entire subject matter of each rule; and they are not intended to be used for the purpose of modifying, interpreting, or construing any of these Rules of Assessment Participation for edTPA. I agree that any legal action arising in connection with my registration for or participation in edTPA shall be brought in the state and federal courts governing St. Paul, Minnesota, and I consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts.

Voiding of Scores:

If you violate one of the Rules of Assessment Participation or if doubts are raised about the validity or legitimacy of your registration or your scores, Evaluation Systems may notify the educator preparation program and/or State Agency you identified during the registration process, as applicable.

Evaluation Systems reserves the right to void your scores if in their sole opinion, or after consultation with the educator preparation program and/or State Agency you identified during the registration process (as appropriate), there is adequate reason to question your scores' validity or legitimacy, due to misconduct including, but not limited to, a violation of the rules set forth on the current edTPA website, including the Rules of Assessment Participation.

Further action may be taken, including remedies deemed appropriate by Evaluation Systems, your educator preparation program or State Agency, as applicable.

Please note that software may be employed to screen submissions for originality of content. Submissions determined to violate edTPA rules regarding the originality of the submitted material will be subject to actions described above.”

We’re always warned to read the fine print, but that doesn’t really mean we have much power to do anything about it, especially when it is a requirement of employment. Now, imagine that candidate I described above, waiting since last spring to receive an edTPA score, getting nowhere with Pearson, SCALE, or the program, and knowing only that the portfolio is in a limbo of administrative review. Maybe that’s not hypothetical. Maybe that is reality.

More on edTPA: “Building the plane as we fly it”

I’m not sure if this is the first time someone referred to the process of developing a Teacher Performance Assessment for student teachers as “building the plane as we fly it” but there is a Powerpoint slide from a May 30, 2012 presentation by Illinois State University Associate Dean Amee Adkins with a picture of a plane and those words on the slide. Since then the analogy seems to have entered into the edTPA world, and at least here in New York, it’s looking as though the plane will be making a crash landing. I think part of the problem is not just the rush to implementation, but an inherent contradiction. Is edTPA a “test” you either pass or you don’t, or is it a “process” with integrity, a meaningful way to capture a teacher’s knowledge and skills?  A test with a cut score is about a competition, with strict rules and regulations, winners and losers. A process that aims for an authentic way to capture what real teachers do means there must be some degree of dialogue, collaboration, sharing of ideas and resources.  

The reason I am writing about this is I was looking at the online community of the edTPA AACTE website yesterday and found a question about whether peer editing was “allowed” and the answer was that “peers cannot provide feedback on the edTPA a candidate plans to submit.” About a week later someone else posted in the same threaded discussion that at the NYSATE/NYACTE meeting last October in Albany participants were told by SCALE that peer support on the edTPA portfolio was acceptable. This time there was a more explicit explanation that gets right to the heart of the contradiction I am worried about:

“Teaching is a collaborative profession and candidates learn to teach in contexts of support and constant communication with faculty, cooperating teachers and peers. Conversation between candidates, instructors, and peers about their teaching should not be restricted. However, peer editing and feedback that provides direct edits of the candidate’s writing or specific suggestions that provide candidates with alternative answers to edTPA prompts is outside the acceptable support guidelines.” (Fry, 22 Apr 2014)

You see, it’s very hard to have your test and process too. You can make the candidate sign a statement that says: “I am the sole author of the commentaries and other written responses to prompts and other requests for information in this assessment.” Does this mean that no one, not a classmate, a relative, a cooperating teacher, a supervisor or faculty member provided any “specific suggestions” for one of the prompts in the edTPA portfolio commentary templates? How would anyone know if they did?

Besides, part of the way that the edTPA has been sold to the teacher educators who have to help candidates get through the process is to reassure them that candidates will support each other, and will have support from their cooperating teachers. Here are a few examples:

The Making Good Choices document for candidates on p. 8 states:

"While your cooperating teacher must not choose a learning segment for you, his/her input can be useful in guiding you to consider all of the relevant factors in your selection."

St. Olaf College in Minnesota says here:

“In summary, educators and peers providing support to candidates completing the edTPA should take care that it reflects the understanding of the candidate with respect to the teaching and learning during the learning segment documented and is an authentic representation of the candidates’ work.”

They also say: “Before teaching the unit that contains the learning segment, the candidate submits a unit plan to the host teacher and college supervisors.”

And they infer that others will look at the video:

“This video will be seen by the candidates, their college supervisors, their host teachers, and up to two scorers who are trained to score the edTPA.”

In a presentation by Joan Lesh, edTPA Coordinator at the University of Washington, Powerpoint slides refer to “peer sharing” and “collegial discussions to mirror real world collaboration.”

Tennessee Tech University Associate Professor Nancy J. Kolodziej’s Prezi on an edTPA seminar involves descriptions of extensive peer review and feedback.

In a presentation on edTPA lessons learned from faculty at The College at Brockport, SUNY they wrote of “peer review in student teaching seminars” and they write to cooperating teachers in the guidelines on edTPA: “While the edTPA needs to be the work of the candidate, it will be important to provide feedback and suggestions and ask critical questions as the teaching candidate reflects on his/her lessons.”

SUNY New Paltz has an edTPA Candidate Community site on Blackboard and edTPA Study Halls.

Washington State University’s edTPA guidelines state: 

“Although you may seek and receive appropriate support from your university supervisors, cooperating/master teachers, university instructors, or peers during this process, the ultimate responsibility for completing this assessment lies with you.”

In an edTPA training session with Beverly Falk, CCNY and Nicole Merino, SCALE on 9/9/13 they wrote:

“There are other ways to support writing as well. University of Washington for example holds a writing “boot camp” during the student teacher experience itself. They take a few days during student teaching time when students are invited to come to campus to complete the writing for edTPA. Faculty are available to give them feedback on their writing. It is not a time for review and edits of candidate work. It’s time dedicated to doing the writing so that students get it done early rather than waiting until the end. Waiting till the end has a detrimental effect on their writing. It can be helpful to involve the University Writing Center as well.”

In a presentation on Ethical Coaching – an edTPA Summit by Kathleen Ofstedal of St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, she describes a “Peer Analysis Worksheet” and provides a list of explicit guiding questions that teacher educators can use to coach candidates through the edTPA process but cautions in a footnote: *Do not tell Candidates what to say in their edTPA. Do not edit their writing. Do not intensively coach those who are weak and may not pass. Do not suggest specific changes, instead, ask good questions.

Today there were new guidelines for supporting candidates posted on the edTPA AACTE website. The older version had a table indicating acceptable and unacceptable forms of support. The new one seeks to clarify the differences by providing additional examples of acceptable types of support and those that are unacceptable but stops short of an explicit veto of peer editing. It also states as unacceptable: “Uploading candidate edTPA responses (written responses or videotape entries) on public access social media websites” and there was an additional reminder in my email today about that issue, so I decided to see what’s happening on Twitter with an edTPA search. I don’t think the feel good propaganda of edTPA as authentic learning process is working:

Yo, that edTPA bull*&@+ needs to be cut ASAP

Stressed. Stressed. Stressed. Stressed. Stressed. Stressed. Oh, and stressed. #saveme

edTPA can kiss my butt!

“The edTPA is my favorite!” #SaidNoOneEver

F(*& the edTPA

If I think about the edTPA anymore, my head will LITERALLY explode. Literally, folks, LITERALLY my head will blow up #noonewantstoseethat

The edTPA: Good thing or bad thing?

Back in October, Jon Stewart did a very funny commentary on The Daily Show about how CNN and other news media were stuck on reducing even the most complex nuanced issues to: is it a good thing, or a bad thing? (see parts one and two here). Since then I have been feeling frustrated about the way news media report on debates in education in similarly reductive ways on everything from charter schools to the Common Core Standards. But one in particular deserves a more thoughtful analysis, especially because the ping-pong back and forth between opponents and advocates is turning into a propaganda circus. Here is the question at the heart of the matter:

    How should we determine if a teacher is ready to teach?

Traditionally, institutions of higher education that prepared teachers in professional programs were responsible for this decision. State requirements for certification informed program design, and program changes were driven primarily by state regulations that sought to continually improve teacher quality. As high stakes testing and accountability increased after the passing of No Child Left Behind legislation, measures of “highly qualified” teachers depended on psychometrics more than human judgment. So now, in addition to graduating from a teacher preparation program, those seeking certification to teach must also pass a slew of exams. Most of these are a mix of multiple choice and essay questions, and they are generally seen as inadequate measures of teacher preparedness. I suspect that states keep them going  to prevent programs from becoming diploma mills, and to provide employers with the illusion that passing scores are useful metrics for objectively measuring teacher quality. Institutions haven’t objected to them because they have high enough passing rates, and it alleviates the painful process of counseling out students who don’t have what it takes to be a teacher when they simply can’t pass the tests.

Against the backdrop of the full on assault of the corporate reformers on public schools and the teaching profession captured in meticulous detail by Diane Ravitch in her most recent books, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education  and Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools  and on her blog, we now have a new way to determine if a teacher is ready to teach, a Teacher Performance Assessment known as edTPA. Using the language of the mid-1990s, when the standards movement was seeking to move away from traditional testing in favor of “performance assessments,” the edTPA was developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE) at Stanford University and was promoted by the leading scholar in the field, Linda Darling-Hammond. So far seven states, including New York, have adopted policies for using edTPA. New York and Washington are the first states to require edTPA passing scores for initial certification starting this spring. However, Washington has been involved in piloting edTPA for a few years. New York did a very small pilot in 2013 and has now made it a requirement for candidates applying for certification after May 1, 2014. In addition, New York has changed to two new exams, the EAS or Educating All Students, and the ALST, or Academic Literacy Skills Test, and is rolling out new versions of the CST exams, or Content Specialty Test in September of this year.

Back to Jon Stewart for just a minute: “The beautiful thing about good/bad is like beige, it goes with everything, in an equally unsatisfying manner.” I can’t help thinking that maybe the edTPA is as beige as beige can be. It all sounds so perfectly reasonable on the two-page fact sheet available here.  “By the profession for the profession” and “Helping to meet education’s top priority” – who could argue with that? It certainly seems better than an outdated multiple-choice test because it involves a lot of writing, authentic artifacts, and a video recording. 


But the edTPA has caused quite a brewhaha, including a formal statement against edTPA from the National Association for Multicultural Education,  a special themed summer issue of Rethinking Schools, and an all-day conference March 8th at Teachers College in New York where some sparks flew.  Dean Posamentier of the School of Education at my college, Mercy College, wrote an op-ed piece critiquing edTPA that prompted two letters to the editor in response.  Part of the anxiety stems from early indications that the passing rate institutions can expect may be below the state’s requirement of 80%, and as low as 60%. This has led to an outcry about the quick implementation, with Commissioner King claiming in a March 12^th press release that the “new exams were originally scheduled for 2013” but everyone was granted an extra year to get ready. When asked about the fast pace of implementation by teacher educator Fran Spielhagen at a session of the American Educational Research Association’s annual meeting on April 5^th, Linda Darling Hammond said, “New York is a prototype of how not to implement teacher performance assessment” (this prompted a big audience reaction), “and some of us have been very engaged in speaking to the policy community there about how they ought to be rethinking some aspects of that, and I think you will see some things at the next Regents’ meeting that are hopefully a result of those conversations.” She went on to explain, “The New York situation is that this year they have introduced four new tests. Three of them are the multiple choice, bubble in, typical tests that we’ve become familiar with, and I’m told, by those that have looked at the data, that they’re where most of the failure rate is going to come from.” This made me wonder if the conspiracy theory that edTPA is really out to shut down all those “bad” teacher preparation programs by making the passing rates below 80% was true, and that while they distracted us with the increased demands of edTPA, they slipped in the new exams and made them suspiciously hard to take and pass.

But I digress. What I want to do is summarize some very reasonable issues of concern with edTPA because right now we have to move beyond arguing over which petition to sign and how to call for a delay of the launch. Frankly, the train has left the station. Just as NCLB died a quiet death of waivers and was overtaken by the power of Race to the Top and its competitive carrot dangling, I’m worried that edTPA may not proceed on a national scale but get replaced with something worse (and ETS is already working on that). 

COST.

The registration fee for taking edTPA through Pearson is $300. Failure to pass the first time may result in retaking one task for an additional $100 fee, or having to resubmit the whole thing and pay another $300 fee. Only a few vouchers were distributed to institutions so not everyone who is receiving financial aid qualified for a voucher. Candidates who receive a voucher can only get one so they still have to pay the fees for other exams.

In addition, initial certification candidates must take 3 exams and only one, the CST, is being grandfathered in New York. The total cost for those exams is $352. The exams that most candidates have previously taken, the LAST and ATS-W, cost $238. That brings the minimum expense to $990, assuming the candidates pass all exams the first time.

I understand we want teachers to be considered professionals, just like lawyers and doctors, but they do not make those starting salaries and this is a lot of money to get certified. I don’t think the bar exam or medical board exam cost this much.

TIME.

The edTPA requires teaching 3-5 lessons. Candidates typically have two student teaching placements in one semester. Because the exam takes Pearson three weeks to score, and candidates must secure consent forms from parents before videotaping, there is a very short turn around time for completing the process. It is a logistical nightmare for candidates who are seeking dual certification, as many are doing, since it improves their chances of securing employment after graduation. The elementary edTPA requires additional teaching in math and many feel this places an undue burden on those candidates.

Institutions of higher education have an additional burden and liability for remediating candidates who do not pass the edTPA but are no longer in their student teaching placements. There has been insufficient time to make policies, courses, and arrangements with partner schools for those candidates who may require remediation.

Teacher preparation programs have not had enough time to implement supports and practice experiences into coursework that will prepare candidates for success on the edTPA. This has meant that right now, teacher educators are taking time away from the courses candidates take while student teaching, and replacing important content with edTPA logistics and preparation. It also means less opportunity to reflect on mistakes and to discuss why lesson plans don’t always go as expected, which is so important during student teaching. Instead, the focus is all on edTPA and meeting requirements. Unintended consequences deserve at least as much attention as a policy’s desired outcomes.

SCALE at Stanford, and Sharon Robinson, President of AACTE, have both expressed concern about the fast implementation of edTPA in New York State. Most states are giving the edTPA more time for implementation as a certification requirement. For example, Illinois will wait until Fall 2015 and will begin with a lower cut score of 35, compared to New York’s cut score of 41.

PRIVACY.

It is obvious the public has legitimate concerns about protecting students’ private records and data. This issue emerged recently regarding inBloom and the state’s plans to openly share that student data in the cloud, and there are similar issues raised with edTPA.

Candidates must secure parent consent forms in order to videotape and use student work in their edTPA submission. Some schools have flatly refused to allow videotaping, and some parents won’t sign a consent form. Candidates are supposed to exclude students if they don’t have consent, but that is not an optimal solution.

Notification from the state to districts regarding videotaping requirements did not get sufficient distribution and attention, leaving the problem in the hands of institutions. We are already struggling to find high quality placements for student teachers in the current accountability climate, where teachers are less likely to welcome a beginner in the classroom if it might mean lower test scores.

Videotaping is often being done on new technologies such as tablets and phones that are designed to send and store data in ways that may not be secure and private, and that may unintentionally include location information.

Pearson has the right to keep all edTPA data for two years, and to perform validity and reliability tests (that SCALE has also said they will be running, see FAQ #2 here) that constitute research and that should be subject to federal regulations regarding the protection of vulnerable populations.

EQUITY.

If the intent of the edTPA is to provide a better measure of readiness for teaching, it is inequitable to require it of traditional candidates and not of those entering teaching through alternative transition B or C licenses and Teach for America.
As currently designed, the edTPA does not adapt well to contexts of special education in early childhood. This is an area of intense focus with the push for universal pre-K in New York and it is where employment opportunities are expanding.

Candidates who do not do well on high stakes exams that are timed, and who must do their writing on a computer without the benefit of drafting ideas first on paper, are at a disadvantage in the exams, and they may also have difficulty using and decoding technical jargon language in their edTPA commentaries. They may have other considerable strengths they bring to teaching that are not reflected in these exams.

You have to wonder who is behind creating barriers to diversifying the teaching force and outsourcing the work of teacher educators to a problematic corporation like Pearson.

CONTEXT.

Many feel that while there may be good intentions behind the design and development of edTPA, especially in terms of offering an alternative to traditional exams, the scope and burdens are better suited for the early induction years of teaching, when candidates will be in their own classrooms.

Student teachers are essentially guests for a limited amount of time, and for many of them, student teaching is the first real opportunity they have had to work with groups of students over time and to try out the ideas gleaned from coursework. Many contextual factors can already interfere with this fragile period of intense learning, and most educators who work with student teachers know how much stress is involved. Adding something as complex as the edTPA on top of what they are already expected to do is likely to wreak havoc on their confidence. Student teaching can sometimes be painful, but it should also have its moments of joy and discovery.

Outsourcing the scoring of the edTPA to Pearson, known for inadequate and online training of scorers who are underpaid, means a loss of local control where knowledge of context means everything. How can a scorer living in rural Iowa really understand the context of a school in the South Bronx, or vice-versa?

Maybe the edTPA isn’t so beige after all.