High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 6/7/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 10/31/2019 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 11/11/2019 education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 28 Number 53 April 6, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 High-stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation: Educators’ Perceptions and Actions Resulting in Curriculum Change Carla Lynn Tanguay Georgia State University United States Citation: Tanguay, C. L. (2020). High-stakes assessment in elementary education teacher preparation: Educators’ perceptions and actions resulting in curriculum change. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(53). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4840 Abstract: Policy makers have begun requiring teacher performance assessments, such as edTPA®, with established validity and reliability in teacher education for certification, program approval, and/or accreditation (Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2013). Proponents of edTPA argue that the measure is an authentic yet standardized way to assess candidate readiness for teaching and may be beneficial for program renewal and professionalization of the teaching force (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Wei & Pecheone, 2010). Others recognize unintended consequences of a single, standardized assessment which may narrow the curriculum (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007); create tensions for teacher candidates who are learning and developing; (Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015); and overlook program values important for preparing candidates to teach in a global society (Sato, 2014). This case study uncovers teacher educators’ perceptions of edTPA and their subsequent actions in response to a state mandate resulting in educative strategies to support their candidates, curriculum change, and lessons learned. Keywords: Teacher performance assessment; Performance-based; edTPA; TPA, PACT; Accountability and reform http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4840 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 2 Evaluación de “high-stakes” en la preparación docente de educación primaria: Percepciones y acciones de los educadores que resultan en un cambio curricular Resumen: Responsables políticos han comenzado a exigir evaluaciones del desempeño docente, como edTPA®, con validez y confiabilidad establecidas en la educación docente para la certificación, aprobación de programas y/o acreditación (Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2013). Los defensores de edTPA argumentan que la medida es una forma auténtica pero estandarizada de evaluar la preparación de los candidatos para la enseñanza y puede ser beneficiosa para la renovación del programa y la profesion alización de la fuerza docente (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Wei & Pecheone, 2010). Otros reconocen las consecuencias no deseadas de una única evaluación estandarizada que puede reducir el plan de estudios (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker & Ruddell, 2007); crear tensiones para los candidatos a docentes que están aprendiendo y desarrollándose (Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015); y pasar por alto los valores del programa importantes para preparar candidatos para enseñar en una sociedad global (Sato, 2014). Este estudio de caso rev ela las percepciones de los educadores docentes sobre edTPA y sus acciones posteriores en respuesta a un mandato estatal que resulta en estrategias educativas para apoyar a sus candidatos, cambio de currículo y lecciones aprendidas. Palabras-clave: Evaluación del desempeño docente; Basado en el rendimiento; edTPA; TPA, PACT; Rendición de cuentas y reforma Avaliação de “high-stakes” na preparação de professores da escola primária: Percepções e ações dos educadores que resultam em mudança curricular Resumo: Os formuladores de políticas começaram a exigir avaliações do desempenho d os professores, como edTPA®, com validade e confiabilidade estabelecidas na educação docente para certificação, aprovação de programas e / ou acreditação (Darling -Hammond & Hyler, 2013). Os defensores do edTPA argumentam que a medida é uma forma autônoma que avalia a preparação dos candidatos para a licença e pode ser beneficiada pela a renovação do programa e a profissionalização da força de ensino (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Wei & Pecheone , 2010). Outros reconquistam as consecuções não desejadas de uma única avaliação estandarizada que pode reduzir o plano de estudos (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker & Ruddell, 2007); criar tensões para os candidatos a docentes que estão aprendendo e desenhando (Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015); e exibir por alto os valores do programa importante para preparar candidatos para o exame em uma sociedade global (Sato, 2014). Este estúdio de caso revela as percepções dos educadores docentes sobre o edTPA e suas ações posteriores e segue um estatuto estatístico que resulta em estratégias educacionais para apoiar seus candidatos, mudança de currículo e lições aprendidas . Palavras-chave: Avaliação do desempeño docente; Basado no retorno; edTPA; TPA, PACT; Prestação de contas e reforma High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 3 High-stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation: Educators’ Perceptions and Actions Resulting in Curriculum Change Responding to accountability issues and public perception, teacher educators recognize that authentic, valid and reliable assessments measuring teacher-candidate effectiveness, required by the new accrediting body, the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2013), are a means for elevating the teaching profession (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Grossman, 2008; Mehta & Doctor, 2013; Peck, Singer-Gabella, Sloan, & Lin, 2014; Wei & Pecheone, 2010). Under scrutiny for creating program assessments lacking validity and reliability and alignment to a shared language of practice, educators across the country have explored the use of standardized teacher performance assessments (TPAs) designed to measure teacher candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Sato, 2014). In some states, institutions are exploring TPAs using locally developed evaluation measures, while other states have mandated a national, externally evaluated TPA, such as edTPA®, for various purposes (e.g., program completion/graduation, certification, program approval, and/or accreditation; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2013; Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity, 2016). While the intent to use TPAs is to professionalize the teaching force and to improve teacher preparation, teacher educators have mixed feelings on their use as standardized measures to evaluate teachers, programs, and their candidates (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007; Lit & Lotan, 2013; Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015; Peck, Gallici, & Sloan, 2010; Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016; Peck & McDonald, 2013; Sloan, 2015). Teaching is a complex endeavor, requiring the professional and moral judgement of teachers beyond knowledge of facts and performance of skills. Thus, teacher educators are challenged in identifying appropriate, common measures aligned to their philosophical perspectives and program missions to assess candidates who are prepared through various routes and contexts. Due to these challenges, I examined teacher educators’ responses (i.e. perceptions of edTPA and subsequent actions) to a state mandate, requiring edTPA as a measure for teacher certification. The First Nationally Available TPA: edTPA After 25 years of developing, implementing, testing, and refining performance-based assessments (e.g., InTASC standard Portfolio, PACT, National Board portfolio), the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) in collaboration with their partners, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), created and own edTPA, the first nationally available TPA (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity, 2016). edTPA’s structural design incorporates 80% general pedagogy (i.e. planning, teaching, and assessing) and 20% subject-specific pedagogy constructs across 27 content areas aligned to national organization standards, such as the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics and InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions (Pecheone, Whittaker, & Klesch, 2016). edTPA includes three subject-specific tasks aimed at student learning and principles from research and theory: 1) planning for instruction and assessment, 2) instructing and engaging students in learning, and 3) assessing students’ learning. The edTPA Elementary Education Handbook includes three tasks focused on literacy learning and a fourth task, “Assessing Students’ Mathematics Learning” (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, 2017, p. 43). edTPA provides an opportunity for candidates to create a 3-5-day learning segment emphasizing student learning, inclusive of academic language and analytic writing and reflection focused on justifying teaching Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 4 decisions, analyzing teaching effectiveness, and using assessment to inform instruction (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, 2017). edTPA tasks include authentic artifacts such as lesson plans, student work samples, video-recorded evidence, and commentaries. Upon completing edTPA, teacher candidates submit all tasks for external scoring. The development and design of edTPA was intended for educative purposes as embedded in programs where learning is ongoing and is intended to enhance program improvement and curriculum renewal (Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016). Pecheone and Whittaker (2016) highlight the importance of incorporating formative opportunities for candidates to engage in authentic experiences, using edTPA materials, as well as teacher educators’ use of data from candidates’ edTPA score profiles and work samples to identify strengths and needs for program improvement. Although educators are provided support from SCALE in collaboration with AACTE through an online network community, including numerous shared resources, educators mandated to implement the assessment have met challenges from the onset. Literature Related to Teacher Performance Assessments As mandates influence change (Hall & Hord, 2015), the review of the literature on TPAs provided an understanding of how teacher educators responded to TPAs and to state mandates requiring TPAs as a measure for teaching readiness. Research has indicated that administrators face challenges motivating teacher educators to engage in, rather than to resist, new policy mandates (Peck et al., 2010; Sloan, 2013). By recognizing educators’ stages of concern, in response to policy mandates, teacher preparation program leaders can learn how to engage faculty in professional development (Many et al., 2019; Qian, Fayne, & Lieman, 2017). Some educational scholars contend that leaders in higher education must come to understand how they are influenced by policy mandates and the conditions for developing an inquiry stance to learn and change (Dewey, 1938, Peck et al., 2010; Peck & McDonald, 2013; Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). Three empirical research case studies highlight teacher educators’ perspectives in response to change via inquiry, compliance, and/or resistance to TPA implementation. Peck and McDonald’s (2013) findings indicate that faculty engaged in inquiry to learn more about the California Teacher Performance Assessment (CalTPA) mandate; to navigate philosophical differences; to collaborate in data decision-making; and to create an alternative TPA, the Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT) (Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). Similarly, Sloan (2013) explained how distributive leadership supported a culture of inquiry resulting in educators’ smooth PACT implementation and data-driven conversations, despite some initial resistance. Leaders who support the collective learning of their faculty provide organized structures where social interaction occurs, new meaning is constructed, and inquiry leads to program coherence and improvement (Guaglianone, Payne, Kinsey, & Chiero, 2009; Peck et al., 2010; Stillman et al., 2013). Other scholars indicate that teacher educators’ local knowledge in developing their program curriculum (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016) and professional discourse (Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, & Ruddell, 2007) must be valued and permitted, rather than standardized. As participant researchers, Kornfeld, Grady, Marker, and Ruddell (2007) questioned who and what gave meaning to words, including “what counted as knowledge in teacher education and whose interests were being represented” (p.10). They found that the impact of the policy changes heightened their awareness of standardization. While the new standards provided a common language for talking about practice, the use of technical, standardized language narrowed faculty thinking about what they do. Finally, they discovered that by engaging in the process of critical discourse analysis, the process served for High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 5 them to regain control of their discourse, a political act, which diminished their chances of being controlled by the discourse (Kornfeld et al., 2007). The literature also points to the critical need for teacher educators to consider teacher candidates’ learning in a high-stakes testing environment. Teacher educators recognized the inconsistencies in standardized testing for children in K-12 education as for teacher candidates who are also learning and developing as professionals (Caughlin & Jiang, 2014). In previous research, educators addressed sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) recognizing novices’ developmental needs for feedback, co-constructing knowledge with influential others, in contrast to a TPA summative measure in a high-stakes context with rules addressing acceptable candidate support (Chung, 2008; Margolis & Doring, 2013; Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015; Ratner & Kolman, 2016). Since schools are places of learning, teacher educators recognized the context for learning as important, considering the amount of autonomy that teacher candidates have to make curricular decisions and implement a TPA in school placements (Chung, 2008; Margolis & Doring, 2013; Meuwissen & Choppin, 2015; Okhremtchouk et al., 2009). Okhremtchouk, Newell, and Rosa (2013) found that candidates displayed a gap in self-confidence related to academic language compared to their PACT scores and reported stress with classroom management and having time to plan with their teachers. Furthermore, Bunch, Aguirre, and Tellez (2009) found that candidates needed support in using mathematics vocabulary and instructional supports for discourse language demands. Likewise, Van Es and Conroy (2009) found that candidates needed supports to develop understanding of their pupils’ thinking and mathematics discourse, to describe trends and patterns in learning, and to become analytical writers as required by TPAs. As state and federal mandates require teacher education programs align to state and national teaching standards, Common Core Standards, and TPAs, educators wonder if increased standardization will result in narrowing teacher education curriculums. TPAs are criticized for not supporting culturally-responsive instruction, multicultural education, and social justice education (Dover & Schultz, 2016; Tuck & Gorlewski, 2016). Tuck and Gorlewski (2016) indicated that TPAs do not address issues of race, socioeconomic class, and gender, and instead they assume a color- blind ideology. Understanding that TPAs are not intended to address all the complexities of teaching, Stillman et al. (2013) responded by creating their own matrix model, in addition to using the PACT rubrics, to identify candidates’ abilities to enact culturally responsive instruction. They found that candidates had shallow understandings of prior academic knowledge and missed learners’ funds of knowledge (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). Data proved to be useful as findings also included candidates’ assumptions about their pupils’ interests based on stereotypes and their own biases regarding race and ethnicity (Stillman et al., 2013). Finally, we learn that Ledwell and Oyler (2016) employed a decentralized approach permitting faculty to create their own pathways to examine edTPA. Ledwell’s and Oyler’s findings revealed that edTPA did not serve as a gatekeeper, since gatekeeping occurred early in the program. However, findings indicated that edTPA served as a curriculum change agent at two levels, revision and creation. When edTPA was used as an instructional tool in formative ways, faculty reported edTPA was aligned with teacher preparation practices (i.e., the planning, teaching, assessing, and reflecting cycle) already deemed important. Theoretical Framework For this study, I used a naturalistic inquiry approach (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to observe and interpret the experiences of teacher educators’ collaborative efforts during the edTPA implementation process to learn about and to describe their practices both individually and collectively. Therefore, I relied on explanations of Herbert Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interactionism, Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 6 an interpretive perspective, to provide qualitative analyses of teacher educators’ perceptions of edTPA and their subsequent actions leading to substantial programmatic changes in response to the state mandate. Viewing knowledge construction through the process of inquiry in social interactions, I examined “the influence of meanings, or the symbolic significances of people’s experiences” (Ezzy, 2002, p. 4) and gained deeper insight of the issues confronting teacher educators within their high- stakes context. For example, I explained teacher educators’ responses of resistance, compliance, and/or inquiry in their social context in response to the edTPA mandate (Kornfeld et al., 2007; Peck et al., 2010). Meaning making resided within the symbolic interactions of the teacher educator participants who were trying to make sense of the new policy, its implementation, and its implications for their programs. The process of inquiry as a social construct is aligned with Blumer’s (1969) ideas on the social construction of knowledge: meaning is constructed due to symbolic interactions that occur in group lived experiences. Thus, I investigated one program’s response to a state mandate by addressing the following research question: “How did teacher educators (i.e., administrators, coordinators, department chairs, faculty/course instructors, university supervisors) from one elementary education teacher preparation program respond to a state mandate requiring teacher candidates to pass a teacher performance assessment (i.e., edTPA) for teacher certification?” Methodology This single-case study focused on a purposefully selected, traditional, university-based, undergraduate elementary education program, as the holistic unit of analysis, leading to initial certification P-5 and serving an ethnically, racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse population (i.e.,150 – 170 graduates, annually) with limited faculty turnover. Out of 19 contacts, eight purposefully selected, consenting, teacher educators comprised of faculty, program leaders, and administrators served as embedded units (Yin, 2014). Bounded by program context, time, and phenomenon, this instrumental case study was well suited for case study method to examine contemporary phenomenon to learn about a problem or issue, such as the state mandate, and to generate descriptive findings using constant comparative analysis for educators in similar contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014). Education stakeholders representing the Georgia Department of Education, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GAPSC), teacher educators and school system personnel, including the edTPA Policy and Implementation Advisory Committee, adopted edTPA in Georgia for initial teacher certification in 2015. The state mandate followed three years, 2011-2014, of stakeholders’ exploration of edTPA; full implementation of edTPA in 2014-2015, the non-consequential year; and passing edTPA scores for initial teacher certification in 2015-2016, the consequential year (Georgia Professional Standards Commission, 2016). Elementary Education candidates are required to pass the edTPA in Elementary Education comprised of three literacy tasks and one mathematics task (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity, 2017). Thus, Georgia institutions were faced with the need to ensure that teacher educators understood the new assessment, the policy, and its implications for teacher candidates and programs. Data Sources, Collection, and Management Providing a chain of evidence in addressing the question and working from an etic perspective, I used the following data sources: (a) individual, semi-structured face-to-face, 45-60 minute interviews (N=8) and follow-up, 15-30 minute interviews (N=2) via phone to obtain additional information, (b) follow-up email responses to clarifying questions used to gather understanding of key findings (N=3); and (c) multiple program documents across three years, 2014- High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 7 2017. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Please refer to Appendix A for the Interview Protocol and to Appendix B for the Document Review, including elicit texts and extant texts (Yin, 2014), produced in the 2014-2015 edTPA exploratory year and the 2015-2017 academic, consequential years of edTPA implementation. Data Analysis I conducted an inductive inquiry, generating descriptive findings using constant comparative method for data analysis of interview transcriptions, email responses, and document texts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By conducting a naturalistic inquiry, grounded theories are explained as pattern theories (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I identified a unit of analysis as a thought unit of text and used open, “in-vivo,” coding (Charmaz, 2006, p. 55), making sense of semantic relationships between the initial codes, identifying patterns, creating sub-categories, and sorting into larger category codes across the data set. Employing a recursive process, the first interview and subsequent analysis shaped my data collection and data analysis process (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I looked for new patterns as possibilities for expanding existing trends found in the literature (Goetz & LeCompte, 1981). Illustrating a persistent observation cycle, I compared interview analyses to document analyses to identify salient themes until reaching data saturation, which led to further semi-structured interviews and follow-up emails with participants to clarify, question, or seek additional information. I reviewed multiple program documents, analyzing document content and function (Prior, 2003). I used the following criteria in the selection of texts: (a) elicit texts (i.e., written documents produced by participants, such as edTPA course assignments and rubrics, program workshop assignments, annual program assessment reports); and (b) extant texts (i.e., those already produced/revised, such as the programs of study, the vision and mission statement, course syllabi; Yin, 2014). In addition to relevant documents that I found on StateU’s website, I reviewed any documents recommended by the participants. Participants were given opportunities to member check, clarify, edit, revise, add, or delete information on the final document transcript. Results From the interview and document analyses, the following themes, with embedded sub- themes, are illustrative regarding the complexities of the findings. Descriptions with selected quotes are aligned to four salient themes: edTPA as a Measure of Teaching Effectiveness, Variation in Educator Engagement with edTPA, edTPA Expectations and Needed Supports for Novices, and edTPA and Actions Resulting in Curriculum Change. edTPA as a Measure of Teaching Effectiveness Teacher educators’ perceptions of edTPA as a valid measure of teaching effectiveness to determine teacher candidate readiness for the profession included both benefits and limitations. Teacher educators named edTPA’s components (i.e. performance tasks inclusive of subject-specific pedagogy) and use (i.e., as an authentic, intentional, informative assessment) as benefits, while their limitations included edTPA’s reliability, fairness and gatekeeping into the profession. Benefits. All eight participants viewed edTPA’s components and use as beneficial for assessing teacher candidate readiness for the profession. Several participants commented on the valuable content of edTPA by describing quality teaching components - the planning, teaching, assessing, and reflecting cycle focused on student learning. One educator indicated, Well, I think it is a better assessment than a multiple-choice Praxis type…Praxis has…well there are teacher certification assessments that have writing components Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 8 in them. I think it is a better measure of whether a student can teach or not, because it does ask for video, and there are more opportunities for students to write about their instructional decisions and the outcome of their instructional decisions. So, I think it is a superior assessment to some of the previous assessments in that regard. (Interviewee 1) Another educator stated the following: In general, I think all teachers should consider the things edTPA asks us to consider, and be reflective about our teaching, and look at what are our students learning from our teaching, and where are the gaps still, and how can I follow up with this. I think all of that is very valuable. They should know and be able to do that when they finish. (Interviewee 5) Furthermore, participants mentioned that edTPA requires intentionality on the part of the candidates to reflect on video-recorded lessons, write critical analyses of practice, and provide culminating evidence of learning at the program endpoint which are vital aspects of any teacher- education program. The participant noted, Well, I feel like I like the part that is a video of what you do and then you have to explain it so that I think reviewers see that there is some intentionality in the actions you are taking…so that you know what you are doing and that sort of thing. So, it’s more than beyond demonstrating good teaching but there is the thinking process behind it – the planning – knowing what you’re looking for and how to remediate and that sort of thing. So, I think that uh, places a greater emphasis on the types of things that [teacher candidates] should know what to do and that we need to incorporate those things in our program. (Interviewee 3) Teacher educators spoke positively on the use of edTPA as an authentic measure, informing them of their candidates’ performance in contexts teaching children and developing as professional teacher leaders. They perceived edTPA as an appropriate measure, requiring teacher candidates to use data to inform instruction: Our issues really haven't been with the assessment itself. It's knowing your students for the context of learning segment, planning appropriate lessons or learning experiences based on knowing the needs of your students, and then assessing in formative and summative ways throughout the teaching process. Then using that data to inform their instruction. This is good teaching. That's why we're having them in that cycle of planning, assessing, informing, planning, and continuing the cycle. (Interviewee 4) I see this as a stepping stone that hopefully will lead to teachers as leaders and maybe some will go on to do national certification. Because, it is very similar, but we need to know what they can do. So, it helps build our program. And, we look and take what they’re doing and use it for improvement in our program. (Interviewee 2) Teacher educators also indicated that edTPA provides a common lexicon for teacher preparation programs but also underscored the accountability factor. We all have a shared common language now. We all talk about the same tasks. We all – all of the institutions of education, we’re kind of together on this. So, I guess in a way, it has brought us all together, at least in a common language. We look at things. High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 9 I don’t know how else you could get around it. If your students aren’t passing edTPA, you’re not going to be in business long, are you? (Interviewee 3) Limitations. Just as teacher educators indicated favorability, they considered limitations to edTPA implementation. Thoughts regarding reliability, fairness, and gatekeeping related to edTPA led to their negative perception of edTPA. Most of the issues that teacher educators shared as liabilities resulted from their understanding and/or lack of understanding of factors concerning the reliability, the fairness, and the gatekeeping/filter notion of edTPA in determining teacher candidate readiness for the profession. Five out of eight educators were concerned about how edTPA is scored, emphasizing interrater reliability, adequate training, expertise, and even effort of the people chosen to score. One participant commented, “I guess, a large part of that depends on who’s scoring it and what their backgrounds are. From what I understand—I could be mistaken about this—it’s teachers that score them. Is that right? Some of them are, possibly, retired teachers” (Interviewee 5). This educator wondered about the qualifications of the people who were scoring edTPA as well as interrater reliability in scoring. Another educator shared concern about low compensation for scorers and questioned their consistency of effort in scoring: Oh, one other thing this scoring as well. I know it’s not, our faculty have done the training. Some of them have been approved. One thing they all have said is what edTPA or Pearson is willing to pay is not nearly enough, because of how long it takes what is needed to do a really good job. So, how do you know that there are going to be those scorers who put out the amount that they are going to get in what they are paid from edTPA? (Interviewee 3) An educator also shared confusion regarding the process of double-scoring which he/she thought had changed from one semester to the next, saying, I'm not really clear on the scoring of the edTPA. I think originally it was supposed to be scored by two national scorers. During the first couple of rounds of scores that were reported, we had several students scoring 0.5's on some rubrics. This led me to believe that they were scored twice and there was a discrepancy, and they took the average. We are not seeing that at all now with our scores, and I've heard that it is only going to one scorer. I'm a little concerned about that. (Interviewee 4) Assessment scores reflected in Appendix B – Document Review 3t – edTPA Institutional Data Analysis (July 2017) indicate that only one candidate out of 72 was double-scored. Concerned about variance in school contexts, lack of choice for candidate selection of a content area for assessment, and differing levels of autonomy dependent upon program type, teacher educators also questioned the fairness of edTPA. School context was a factor for educators who expressed concern about departmentalization where teacher candidates may not be assigned to a school placement in the assessment’s specified content area (i.e., literacy and mathematics). Additionally, educators were concerned about lack of choice for candidates in selecting a content area, since elementary education candidates are required to teach literacy and mathematics rather than science or social studies. One participant explained, I like the video part. I like them analyzing, but I think having that focus on just a literacy standard and a math standard, there are some that excel in science and they don’t have that ability to show-case that. So, I think it is limited in that it is a literacy task and a math task. (Interviewee 2) Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 10 This educator also commented, “I believe some of the fear of edTPA comes from field placement as well. Some of the students do not get to experience all the content areas in placement due to departmentalized grade levels” (Interviewee 2). Furthermore, educators shared concern for their traditional program candidates who are afforded less autonomy in decision-making in their assigned placement, since they are not the instructor of record as are provisional candidates. Provisional candidates can select from a range of learning segments as noted: I know that's true because our provisionally certified students don't have these issues as they are the teacher of record. They're in charge of their curriculum implementation. They're making those decisions. We just don't hear that. They might video for weeks and weeks and then decide on their clips. That's good. I'd like to interview them and see because they may have several experiences they may turn in for their ‘edTPA’ portfolio and then they look back and decide which particular sequence of lessons they will select. To me, that's authentic. (Interviewee 4) Finally, considering edTPA as a gatekeeper or filter for credentialing teacher candidates who are ready for the profession or not, teacher educators shared their concerns regarding unintended factors for success and/or lack of success. For example, regarding unintended factors for success, several teacher educators explained that strength in analytical writing, rather than effective teaching might be a reason for passing the assessment, as noted in the following comment, “So, I find that a little bit concerning. You are still looking at a person’s ability to write analytically and write reflectively and not as much as the intangibles…” (Interviewee 1). Furthermore, educators commented on their concern about edTPA as a single measure and for potentially discounting intangibles such as dispositions: Alright, so when I think back to all of the teachers that had a major influence in my life, and the ones I really liked throughout my life, I don’t know if I can tell you anything about them other than I liked them and something in their classroom made me feel that I was valued or liked or something. (Interviewee 3) What would I substitute? I don't know of a single measure that I would recommend. I really believe in multiple measures to assess teacher readiness. edTPA should not be the one thing that determines if you're certified or not. We do not require students to pass edTPA to graduate with the degree; however, they cannot become certified to teach. That makes it so high-stakes, and that's what creates the anxiety. (Interviewee 4) Educators noted that peer support and online resources may be an unintended factor in passing the edTPA, or candidates’ knowledge of their own limitations may result in their program withdrawal and have an impact on enrollment: I mean and so and I’m thinking, what would prevent someone who scored real well on the edTPA who is one year ahead of their friend to say before you submit that you really didn’t mention….you really need to mention….you need to point that out…you totally missed this…you need to write that in there, too. What would prevent that from happening? Then, it really is not that student’s work anymore. I mean that is probably already happening. (Interviewee 3) Well, I think that you have a—it may be a self-sieve, too, because if the students who go through this and have to start really critically critiquing what they’re doing some of them find this is not for me. (Interviewee 6) High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 11 Since a clear majority of the candidates in the program were passing edTPA, teacher educators also described tensions with the assessment regarding its purpose and its effectiveness in serving as a gatekeeper to determine readiness for teaching. One educator remarked, But, one of the things that I’m really like, I would like the [credentialing agency] to tell us exactly what is the reasoning behind it. Is it to eliminate those teacher candidates who shouldn’t be teaching? Then if that is the case, very, very few of ours hasn’t passed it. So, it hasn’t really done anything. (Interviewee 3) Assessment scores reflected in Appendix B – Document Review 3t – edTPA Institutional Data Analysis (July 2017) indicate that only one candidate had not passed the assessment, while two candidates received incomplete scores due to condition codes indicative of formatting problems or other issues. Variation in Educator Engagement with edTPA Because edTPA was mandated in Georgia for certification, teacher educators demonstrated various levels of edTPA engagement which were dependent upon various factors. To understand what affected teacher educators’ engagement with edTPA implementation, I describe educators’ varied responses as resistance (no engagement), compliance (minimal engagement, responding to consequences) and/or inquiry (full engagement, learning more). Teacher educators’ who resisted the edTPA mandate/assessment questioned their loss of professional autonomy and policy decision- making. Additionally, teacher educators who demonstrated compliance paused to consider how edTPA was aligned or not aligned to their personal and/or programmatic approach to teacher preparation and/or to their roles and responsibilities. Considering lack of engagement, teacher educators presumed the subsequent consequences for themselves and candidates. Educators who were fully engaged perceived their need for inquiry to learn about edTPA, individually and/or collaboratively, to support their teacher candidates. Resisting. Two teacher educators demonstrated some resistance to the mandate questioning their loss of professional autonomy and policy decision-making and fearful that edTPA as an assessment would take over program curriculum at the expense of important activities. One participant explained the “greyhound analogy” as when teacher candidates do what it takes just to get through to pass the test which may not make them better teachers. Another educator questioned representatives involved in the policy decision, saying, Even with the game playing in the sense that I’ll do what it takes. You know, the greyhound analogy…. (laughing in unison). You know, so I think people resent that. I’ve read studies. I’m an article reviewer, and I’ve read on edTPA implementation and how people don’t think it makes them a better teacher and its taking away from other high-quality activities and things that they might be able to do with the [teacher candidates]. (Interviewee 1) I mean was it just the [state licensure board], who decided this is the way we are going? Or, was there some degree of bringing in representatives? That would be good…I think that would reassure a lot of university faculty. (Interviewee 3) Both educators’ comments are indicative of some resistance. Complying. All participants provide a response of compliance (minimal engagement), including unequal weight in their level of involvement with edTPA implementation. Factors of compliance were indicative of how educators perceived (a) edTPA and its alignment to their Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 12 personal and/or programmatic approach to teacher preparation; (b) their roles/responsibilities tied to implementation; (c) subsequent consequences for themselves and candidates; (d) their levels of knowledge and understanding of the assessment; and, (e) issues of sustainability with implementation. Recognizing consequences of the edTPA mandate as related to her/his role and aligned to his/her personal practice, a teacher educator’s remarks indicate this reason for complying: I try hard to stay true to what I believe to be true about teaching and learning. Assuming that what I believe to be true about teaching and learning matches what the assessment believes to be true about teaching and learning, then I don’t really, necessarily, see a shift is needed, but I guess it would be if my philosophy didn’t align with what it was asking for, I suppose. I would still wanna push back on that. (Interviewee 5) Other teacher educators remarked that successful candidate preparation reflected faculty effort as assumed in their role/responsibility, a reason for compliance. Those assigned to teach literacy and mathematics courses, content areas aligned to the elementary education edTPA, recognized their need to comply to support candidate preparation, while social studies and science instructors hesitated to get involved. An educator commented: If the instructors of the course did not see that it fit into their course, then it was hard to get them to learn more about edTPA. And, I’ve heard so many times…it’s only reading and math. Why should I do any of it? Well, you know what? We’re teaching them to integrate Social Studies and literacy, and Science and literacy, so, maybe you need to be invested. You have all of the Common Core standards on informational texts. (Interviewee 2) Explaining further why some educators responded with minimal engagement, another person replied, saying, “In a way, I’m glad that the course I ended up with doesn’t have those [edTPA signature assignments] if I’m being perfectly honest” (Interviewee 5). Two more educators recognized that workload, ownership of courses, and knowledge of edTPA influenced educator engagement, resulting in compliance rather than full inquiry/collaboration. They explained how the literacy service department faculty considered inequitable workloads pertaining to edTPA practice assignments in their courses and decided to delete edTPA TASK 2 practice assignment from their course. Early childhood education faculty took ownership of the assignment, but due to uneven faculty knowledge of edTPA, the assignment was ultimately moved to a program workshop taught by the “expert,” the edTPA coordinator (Document Review - 3j and 3k). The Learning Segment and Planning Commentary edTPA TASK 1 practice assignment (Document Review – 3i) was also added to a program workshop taught by the edTPA coordinator. Educators stated the following: You know, TASKS 1, 2, 3 are literacy. But, the literacy faculty felt like it was a lot of work for one or two faculty members to do. We tried dividing it up, but that didn’t work so well. The expert should be doing it. And so, really faculty disagreement about work load and ownership of the assignment caused it to go away. (Interviewee 1) Another educator alluded to the large responsibility placed upon the “expert,” the edTPA coordinator, as another reason for less ownership taken by other educators, saying, I feel like [the edTPA coordinator] was taking a lot of that responsibility on her own, as opposed to—and I wonder because—and this is just a theory. I wonder because High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 13 [the edTPA coordinator] took so much on herself, did faculty just say, "Well, [the edTPA coordinator's] got it"? I know that was part of the frustration. (Interviewee 7) While explaining initial tensions with definitions of academic language, another individual was clear that educators’ understanding of edTPA was needed for their engagement and consistency in candidate preparation, commenting, Well, prior to edTPA we thought of [academic language] as fraction, denominator, numerator, or flask, beaker, burner, goggles, and so…Um, initially there was talk about academic language as more about the language function, the more nuances of edTPA. So, then there was…no edTPA doesn’t get to define academic language in their own brand new way. And, you know what it meant and what it didn’t mean… It’s the syntax, and you know? Well, yeah, the discourse but the…. Yes, the language function…those kinds of things. We had to familiarize ourselves with what the new way of using the term was and even there was some debate over academic language which we got past in the first year. But um…so some of those things and whether the lesson was going to be composing or contrast or the other. (Interviewee 1) Finally, teacher educators viewed issues of sustainability with edTPA implementation regarding new hires, changes in role, and involvement of part-time instructors and P-12 personnel. Two participants shared lessons they learned regarding the need to engage the university field supervisors and cooperating teachers saying, We struggled with it when we started doing the pilot of it, but we didn’t bring in supervisors with it. We probably should have. If they had come in when we were in the pilot stage of studying it, then it would have helped as well. (Interviewee 2) Let’s stay with edTPA… If we could work with the schools more, if the teachers are on board, I really believe we need more teacher interactions, meetings, bringing them [on board with edTPA]. (Interviewee 8) These two teacher educators recognized that equal engagement of all stakeholders and knowledge of edTPA was needed to sustain edTPA implementation in support of candidates. Inquiring. While all teacher educators demonstrated some form of compliance with edTPA implementation, six educators inquired to learn more working individually and collaboratively to support their teacher candidates. Four educators explained that the reason for their engagement resulted from their involvement with initial implementation activities where they became more knowledgeable of edTPA and provided professional development for candidates and faculty. Two educators comment saying, We piloted the assessment with the early childhood program. That was fall, I want to say fall of '14. We did a rollout, and I was involved just in some local evaluation scoring of the selection of portfolios with a very small pilot group. (Interviewee 4) In the past four years, we’ve done Academic Language training. We had some training with the local evaluations. So, we’ve looked at a few portfolios and talked about it. We have had discussions on the meaning of prompts. I am trying to get [faculty] to see what those prompts are and to have them incorporated into their coursework, but that has been a struggle, too. My trainings are for students with faculty invited. (Interviewee 2) Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 14 Educators also explained that involvement in edTPA-related activities led to inquiry about how edTPA corresponded to their course assessments. One educator explained: So, I’ve participated in several get to know you edTPA trainings. We have met as a program faculty about edTPA, and um, what might be needed so that our students are prepared to demonstrate the skills and knowledge, etc. that they needed. So, I attended program meetings about how they should respond to edTPA, and um, you know, curriculum meetings about that. I teach a course in the program, so looking at the assessments in the course I teach and in the program. (Interviewee 1) Still other educators explained how some faculty collaborated, initially, viewing the edTPA initiative as an opportunity for innovation, for literacy integration across the content areas: … I worked on many trainings. Then went to many meetings, and also a couple times, once or twice a month, I would meet with the person teaching Social Studies. We would have a segment where we would have all the undergrads come in, and we would teach them about edTPA, and try to apply it to real teaching. I connected to their classroom, what they’re learning in their classes. (Interviewee 8) edTPA Expectations and Needed Supports for Novices Teacher educators considered the expectations of edTPA, the developmental appropriateness of the assessment, in juxtaposition with novice teacher characteristics and analytic abilities. They considered factors such as edTPA literacy demands and needed supports to impact preservice teacher development and learning. Novice teacher characteristics in juxtaposition with edTPA expectations. Teacher educators questioned the novice teacher’s ability to meet edTPA literacy demands to read and understand the prompting questions, write analytically, communicate effectively with their mentor teacher, and reflect on their practice. For instance, one educator considered the number of prompts and the wording of the prompts as problematic for novice understanding, stating, The thing that I dislike the most is the wording in the prompts, because it is hard for the students to figure out exactly what it is asking them to do. Especially in Task 1…they think that in every prompt they are just repeating themselves. (Interviewee 2) …if it was worded different and not as involved, I think it would be accepted easier by students. They would not see it as a burden, but more as a tool to help them grow as a teacher candidate. I don’t think most of them see it as a tool right now. (Interviewee 2) Regarding a teacher candidate’s writing readiness to answer the edTPA commentary prompts, an educator shared, “But, you need to be able to be understood. The reader needs to be able to follow your train of thought, your flow and organization in your writing” (Interviewee 1). Educators also indicated that novices need negotiation skills as they must communicate with their teachers about when they will be permitted to teach their learning segments. One educator pointed out saying, “They have to negotiate with their teacher. And that negotiation may be favorable or not” (Interviewee 1). Teacher educators considered the need to increase course rigor as they compared teaching undergraduate candidates to their master’s candidates; however, they acknowledged that the expectations of edTPA may bring about positive change, High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 15 So, trying to get this, it’s a lot…I feel like I’m trying to am working to produce what would have been a master, a master’s MED, you know, math teacher’s thinking and language from a bachelor’s degree person. And so, that’s what it feels like. In as far as an emphasis on thinking analytically, it has been brought down from the Master’s level to the undergraduate level, and I think that that curriculum change is a positive change. (Interviewee 1) Another teacher educator questioned the undergraduate’s readiness to engage in critical analysis and reflection, although important, remarking, …at age 21, 22, are we asking our students to do something that they’re really—their brain is not really ready yet to do? Because critical analysis doesn’t really come—start clicking until you’re around 25 or 26 when your brain matures. We see that in the undergraduates, but it’s forcing them, at the beginner level, to start really reflecting. I do think that that makes them a better teacher candidate or teacher in the profession. (Interviewee 6) Providing another perspective, an educator recalled the cooperating teachers’ perceptions of edTPA tasks for novices and their readiness for reflective thinking, commenting, I’d say about 40% (of the teachers) don’t see any need to do this. I’ve had comments like they’re [teacher candidates] not ready for this. They don’t understand all that they’re doing. They haven’t had enough experience to really do reflective thinking. (Interviewee 2) As educators identified reflective thinking as a challenging edTPA demand, yet another educator indicated that edTPA promoted teacher-candidate reflection, saying, “I think our program is stronger because of it. I think our reflection piece is stronger, having students really reflect in more critical ways because of the prompts and the depth that the prompts require” (Interviewee 4). In addition to thinking about novices’ analytic abilities, teacher educators also considered the criticality of feedback that novices need when they are growing and developing. An educator presents her dilemma as novices are in the survival mode, often demonstrating low self-efficacy and need for reassurance and constructive feedback as they are learning new things. She/he explains that the teacher candidate’s ability to transfer knowledge and understanding to work with learners in new settings is critical; however, specific feedback is not permitted at that time: …. I think at this level they want to be constantly reassured. And, it’s almost a level of reassurance I cannot give them, because it is a totally different topic with a totally different level of students [during edTPA completion], and all I can is for this error pattern, what you are saying for where you are, is you know, yeah. (Interviewee 1) Finally, teacher educators identified the need to programmatically address teacher candidate stress related to edTPA literacy demands commenting, “...I think it has caused a lot of unnecessary angst. And, a big part of it is that they are not used to writing about their teaching like that” (Interviewee 1). Another stated, —they’re stressing and obsessing over this edTPA that looms in their immediate future. I just don’t want them to ever feel like their learning has been sacrificed because maybe we’ve too much aligned our instruction to what edTPA wants, if that makes sense. (Interviewee 5) Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 16 Supports promoting novice teacher development and learning. To promote novice teacher development and learning, teacher educators identified multiple ways to support their candidates to decrease stress in a high-stakes learning environment and to promote the development of candidates’ knowledge and skills and ultimate success on edTPA. Teacher educators (a) used strategies to assist candidates in developing conceptual understanding of edTPA components and (b) considered supports needed during clinical practice for candidates to successfully complete edTPA. To develop conceptual understanding of edTPA components, one educator commented on the importance of helping teacher candidates understand the context of learning, or in other words, identifying and using their learners’ prior academic knowledge, and personal, cultural, and community assets when planning: I like the fact that they have to think about the context of the student. I would say that developmentally, that is a weak area for them. It’s a weak area for practicing teachers, so you know, I think it’s a good idea to have conversations about it to get their minds thinking about it, but you know, it’s not a strength of the cohorts that we’ve had in passing. (Interviewee 1) When planning to teach sequential lessons (e.g. a learning segment), another teacher educator stated that novices need support in identifying the central focus of their learning segment and in making connections to their learners’ prior knowledge and other assets. Planning for instruction and assessment, an edTPA TASK 1 component, is a difficult task for the novice yet an important one. An educator described how to assist teacher candidates in unpacking the curriculum standard to understand it, to identify academic language demands, and to plan for instructional supports: Because I know when the students were planning for clinic, they worked on it week to week. Students would each week right before clinic when they would go into work with their client they would grab a book or try to pull something together. Last summer we unpacked the standard. We came up with at least eight to ten different activities, graphic organizers, writing assignments, books they could use. Then they just started pulling from what they'd already pulled together from the research activity. (Interviewee 2) The educator recognized that this activity served as a future resource for teacher candidates when they were completing the planning component of edTPA. Embedding edTPA components in coursework focusing on assessment, differentiation, and reflection benefitted candidates as mentioned by another educator: Assessment is very important for them to know what informal assessment looks like and how it informs our instruction as we move forward, and then what a summative assessment might look like for this, and then being able to take that data that you have from your assessments and figure out how does this inform my next move in the classroom instructionally with my students. Then, for me, a key component is that reflection piece that’s often missing in the classroom. I think we just get so busy, and mired down in survival, and am I ready for tomorrow that we don’t stop to think about yesterday and how if could just stop and think about what happened in this lesson, there may be things that we can change or alter about our instruction or our approaches or strategies that we’ve used that we can go back to and change. I guess that would be the planning, the implementing, the assessing, and the going back and reflecting. (Interviewee 5) High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 17 Teacher educators also recognized that novices need supports to complete edTPA during clinical practice (i.e., time management, mentor teacher professional development, permissible degree of university supervisor support). One educator shared her/his awareness of the need to use a pacing timeline to assist candidates with time management (Document Review – 3p – Wiki document). Another teacher educator explained that teacher educators misinterpreted the rules provided by SCALE regarding cooperating (mentor) teacher support for candidates during edTPA implementation which resulted, initially, in a lack of professional development for mentors and subsequently, lack of support for teacher candidates: Trying to balance—another area that's a challenge, and I don't know that it's really [an] effect, we still are struggling with our partner schools in getting our cooperating teachers on board. On board meaning just knowledgeable of the edTPA. I think at first we were not clear about the cooperating teacher’s role in edTPA and the belief became you (cooperating teacher) can't have anything to do with edTPA. You can't answer questions. You can't be a part. This was frustrating for them because, it was being implemented in their classroom with their students. (Interviewee 4) As a result, teacher educators attempted to provide knowledge for school administrators and mentor teachers (Document Review – 3u – edTPA Partner Schools PowerPoint). Educators mentioned other concerns that surfaced involving the mentor teachers. Interviewee 4 mentioned a program support called “writing days” which was designed by the edTPA coordinator to alleviate stress and to provide time out of field for candidates to write-up their edTPA; however, this support was a concern to teachers who did not want candidates pulled from their field placements (Document Review – 3n Boot Camp Writing Days). Another educator indicated that meeting the needs of course instructors who needed time with candidates on campus seemed equally problematic, saying, And I’d like to be able to go through the handbook and highlight things with [the teacher candidates], but teachers don’t want us to pull them from the field and there are not enough days to do it, and no one wants to do it in their course. (Interviewee 2) This educator also recognized the missed opportunity for principals to learn about edTPA and how to support teachers who are supporting teacher candidates. edTPA and Actions Resulting in Curriculum Change Considering their experiences with edTPA from its onset, teacher educators’ perceptions as associated with a host of factors have resulted in actionable responses regarding their engagement, their support of teacher candidate development and learning, and their level of programmatic, curriculum change. Having conducted a document review, I will refer to Appendix B to provide supporting evidence of teacher educators’ actions resulting in curriculum change as explained by changes to their personal practice, courses, program, and the structures within their college. Change at the personal practice level. Considering the benefits and limitations of implementing edTPA with novices in a high-stakes context, teacher educators at StateU stepped up as individuals to consider change in personal practice. While teacher educators developed understanding of edTPA components, they changed their practice in the following ways: (a) incorporated academic language in course instruction; (b) redesigned course rubrics focused on evidence; (c) emphasized the connection of practice to research and theory; and (d) collaborated with colleagues to integrate literacy across content areas. Some educators’ comments include the following: Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 18 It made me really think about how I would infuse academic language when teaching literacy skills and strategies. When I was teaching that course, I modeled how to use the correct wording (academic language) when teaching. As a result, my own teaching improved. (Interviewee 8) And I say that it improved the rubrics that I used in my class. Because I probably had more of “described what you did.” I had more descriptive reflections and some summarizing, but now I do emphasize evidence. Again, the emphasis on evidence has improved. (Interviewee 1) I am more conscious of making sure that when I am teaching, I help them see connections and finding the evidence. And, why are we doing this? Is this research-based? Does what you chose to do really assess what you want it to assess? Moving away from the fluff stuff. (Interviewee 2) Another educator stated that he/she had become more collaborative because of edTPA, desiring literacy integration across the content areas, saying, “My goal was to be in there and integrate literacy with other disciplines. Even though [the instructor] was Social Studies, I still tried to help them [to] integrate literacy in all subject areas” (Interviewee 8). Change at the course level. Teacher educators worked individually and/or collectively to make changes at the course level by redesigning the curriculum as a more rigorous teacher preparation pathway. Identifying specific learning outcomes, aligned to edTPA components, teacher educators created rigorous assignments within literacy and mathematics courses and assessed candidate progress. Teacher educators’ actions, including changes in course assignments, supported teacher candidate success to pass edTPA and to become certified. Three educators indicated that the faculty made modifications to course assignments and, in some cases, added new assignments to incorporate reflection questions and/or an emphasis on data analysis as noted: We are asking students in reflection questions to cite the evidence…what is the evidence of this? Because that is what children in the schools are being asked to do with Georgia Milestones. I try to model that here with the assignments that I am using in my course. We use it in the reflections questions when they teach lessons in the field. Okay, how do you know there was growth? What is the evidence? Cite your evidence. I want to see it. (Interviewee 2) The same educator named two assignments (Document Review, 3a-3e) where changes were made to the Mathematics and Literacy Case Study assignments and corresponding rubrics. The educator summarized, Yeah, we changed signature assignments to align more with practice activities for edTPA. We’ve [taken] the case studies in Reading and Math and really aligned them to analyzing data: why did you do it? What is the research that goes behind it? What is your evidence that there was growth? So, there’s been changes there. (Interviewee 2) Both of the case study assignments were modified, following the exploration of edTPA, to include prompting reflection questions and an added component of whole class data analysis. Teacher candidates looked for trends and patterns in their data sets to determine next steps and were required to provide alignment to research and/or theory. Another educator explained: I added a whole class analysis, mock piece where I have a class set of data and they look at it. I added an assignment with a whole class analysis because before it was High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 19 really focused on individual analysis or small group analysis, not whole class. (Interviewee 1) This educator continued to comment on the benefit of the change, the prompting reflection questions for teacher candidate response, saying, “Well, the edTPA prompts are good so it actually improved our reflective piece in that regard as they answer the edTPA prompts... instead of just generic outcome prompts that we had before” (Interviewee 1). Yet, another educator commented: The literacy assessment course, has been tweaked over the last—at least over the last two years to address some of the prompts and to make sure that our students are having experiences that prepare them well for tasks, especially for task three, since those are both focused on assessment. (Interviewee 4) This respondent also recalled how the case study assignments, located in the lab component of the mathematics course and embedded in the literacy course, were modified to include reflection prompts focused on assessment, which is an edTPA component of TASK 3. Additionally, the new lesson plan format (Document Review 3o) aligned to edTPA served as a planning tool for candidates. One educator remarked, saying, I know all of the methods courses have been looked at very carefully and aligned with the rubric, with the different rubrics, for example planning. In the block one course where they focus on writing lesson plans, the lesson planning template was revised to have different components that align with the "edTPA" lesson plan template - SCALE still had as a sample template. (Interviewee 4) In their final semester, candidates enroll in Teaching Internship and Teaching Internship Seminar, the student teaching course, and complete edTPA, a new requirement (Document Review, 3f and 3g). Course changes focused primarily in literacy and mathematics, the edTPA content areas of emphasis for elementary education. Change at the program level. In addition to changes at the course level, where instructors added or modified specific assignments, I found significant changes at the program level in workshops facilitated by the edTPA coordinator. Educators’ changes at the program level were related to the following goals: (a) aligning program documents (e.g., vision and mission) to edTPA components; (b) creating workshops outside of coursework to provide candidates with opportunities for practice; and (c) using edTPA data to improve the program and candidate performance leading to certification. For example, a teacher educator shared that program faculty were working on a draft to align the program vision and mission statement to edTPA components (Document Review, 3s). Another educator explained that actions taken to provide stronger program alignment to edTPA may alleviate faculty inconsistency in evaluating and providing feedback on edTPA practice assignments: I think there is an ongoing attempt to get it as aligned as we can. When I mentioned the discussions this summer, I think those came about because some thought that there was not good alignment, or that there wasn’t enough consistency…I think one of the issues was that there was not enough consistency in the feedback, the quality of the feedback that was given to students when they submitted practice run- throughs or what have you. (Interviewee 3) Additionally, the edTPA coordinator provided workshop support in seminar format outside of coursework (i.e., three blocks of coursework prior to student teaching) to increase candidate success Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 20 on the edTPA. Use of this support strategy confirmed the large responsibility placed upon one person, the edTPA coordinator. One educator indicated: We have Block meetings. So, these Block meetings are for whatever the Block might need. We’ve always had Block meetings, but now the edTPA is a part of Block meetings. So, um, we have videoing, and how to video and download, and we added that to one of the Block meetings. We have, um, getting to know the TASKS Block meetings. And so, these things are outside of the course, but they are part of the program. They happen during the Practicum days leading to Student Teaching. And, there are edTPA days for writing during Student Teaching. It’s the edTPA coordinator (who leads), but she teaches a course, too. (Interviewee 1) Appendix B – Document Review – Program Workshops provides a list and description of workshops. For example, the video note page and video note-taking workshop (Document Review, 3j and 3k) provide evidence of the opportunities offered for candidates to practice TASK 2, the instruction task. An educator shared that the workshops, originally called boot camps, are also instructional. He/she described a Block 2 workshop assignment, the Learning Segment and Planning Commentary Assignment, as one that provides the candidate with practice planning, edTPA TASK 1 (Document Review, 3i), saying, So now [the edTPA coordinator] pulls in the Block 2s after they’ve finished field placement…brings them in and [they] do an all-day session. [The edTPA coordinator] shows them examples of a learning segment. [The edTPA coordinator] talks about what is involved, and then they get into small groups and they write one. They type it and email it. Then [the edTPA coordinator] gives feedback. It probably takes four or five weeks of reading through them and giving feedback. But, this gives the students some experience writing three consecutive lessons with some feedback. (Interviewee 2) Finally, program level changes resulted from teacher educators’ decisions based upon their interpretation of edTPA data and their review of teacher candidate work samples. One educator commented on the specificity of the edTPA rubrics as useful in knowing what and where the change is needed in the curriculum, saying, We get the results. They see which areas are the weak areas, so that has to impact program change. If you see that they’re not good at—they can’t write, then you up the writing game, give them a little bit more structure on that. You see the data that comes in and talks about how the assessment piece is the one that is lacking the most, and which indicator, and which of the 18—what are those things called? Rubrics. Yeah, which rubric is needed the most. I do think that that does inform the program very nicely. It’s more specific. Yeah. It was just very generic before, but this is—you can actually look at the rubric and see what is expected in that rubric. You can fit your curriculum needs to the needs of the students, overall, in the overall program. Whereas, I don’t think that was looked at before. (Interviewee 6) This educator explained that prior to edTPA, rubric data provided educators with general rather than specific information which is more useful for making explicit changes in teacher preparation aimed at improvement of candidate performance. Confirming this to be the case, I was given access to institutional assessment results (Document Review – 3q, 3t). Both documents provided teacher educators with information pertaining to candidate performance on key assessments aligned to High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 21 edTPA components. Another educator verified that data were used for understanding program strengths and needs and for program improvement, replying, We look at the rubric scores. Then, individually, the program faculty with edTPA coordinator chooses certain portfolios to go in TK20 read responses after they are scored. Who scored a 4 on rubric 13? Who scored a 3 on rubric 13? Who scored a one or a two? (Interviewee 4) Then, again, began to go back to the program and look to see where are we really focusing on “student use of feedback” or how the candidate is using student feedback. That was one that was evident pretty early that we might need to provide more opportunities to help our students grow in that area prior to internship when they actually implement the edTPA. (Interviewee 4) The educator named a specific edTPA component “student use of feedback,” targeting edTPA rubric 13, as an area where program faculty might consider providing additional learning opportunities for their teacher candidates. As evident in Document Review 3t, the majority of candidates passed edTPA an indication that teacher educators’ efforts have been effective at improving the program and candidate performance. Change at the college level. Unexpectedly, teacher educators experienced changes at the college level similar to issues teachers face in the enactment of challenging curriculum affected by school change. Teacher educators commented on changes made to reorganize departments that required their action to address new edTPA implementation challenges, while the creation of an infrastructure at the college level served to support edTPA implementation efforts. Program faculty explained that the reassignment of the literacy coursework to a different department made communication challenging and changed the responsibilities of some of the instructors who had been supporting edTPA implementation. As a result, program faculty who were previously teaching the literacy courses moved two edTPA signature assignments to seminar, to be offered by the edTPA coordinator, since the new literacy department faculty could not agree with the previous instructors on the content of the assignments and had less edTPA understanding/training. Two educators noted the dilemma, saying, So, I have had to um, have had discussions, you know, across departments about desired signature assignments and you know…your department owns the course, but it is our program, and you know can we agree on a signature assignment or not, because the signature assignments are labor intensive because of the emphasis on writing. (Interviewee 1) And it is hard to get [Literacy Department educators] to support it. Because they don’t have an undergraduate Reading Program, only graduate level. So, they’re a service to us. So, with the pushback and nobody in that faculty wanting to do it, we [Early Childhood Ed educators] divided it up and each of us took so many to grade. Faculty’s level of understanding of edTPA made a big difference in the scoring of the learning segment. [Teacher candidates] were getting 4s and 5s on rubrics who shouldn’t have scored that high. Constructive feedback was a problem area too. (Interviewee 2) While department reorganization presented dilemmas for teacher educators, other educators created an infrastructure at the college level for faculty and candidates, supporting edTPA implementation for teacher candidates and resolving concerns from partner schools. For example, one educator Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 22 described support provided for candidates by college personnel in uploading their edTPA portfolios for external scoring, saying, Okay, so we have a point person, XXXX, who is the director of our Office of Field Experience. Um, when they get to their senior level, they pay an edTPA fee which basically purchases their vouchers. [The point person] tracks all of that. She purchases the vouchers. She is the one who actually distributes them to the students. We have days set up in our computer labs… she and others will man the computer labs and so the kids will come on those dates to submit their portfolios, and they’ll be assisted, if needed. (Interviewee 3) Additionally, college administrators shared edTPA data with teacher educators, teachers and principals to provide information about how the candidates were performing which increased their P-12 partners’ confidence and edTPA knowledge-base to support candidates (Document Review, 3u). Discussion In response to the state mandate requiring edTPA for teacher certification in Georgia, teacher educators wrestled in making sense of their perceptions of edTPA and subsequently acted in ways that addressed changes at the personal, course, program, and college levels. Teacher educators considered both benefits and limitations of edTPA as a measure of teaching effectiveness. They demonstrated various levels of engagement with edTPA implementation as a response to the mandate by either resisting, complying, or fully engaging via inquiry with the efforts to prepare their teacher candidates. They considered edTPA expectations that might affect teacher candidate development and learning in a high-stakes context and the significant supports. Teacher educators took action to adjust their curriculum in an effort to support their teacher candidates. Making sense of some of the obstacles the teacher educators faced in response to the state mandate and the ways they acted to resolve them, I considered their use/lack of use of proactive strategies for acting responsively and for avoiding pitfalls. Please refer to Figure 1, Acting Responsively to Avoid Pitfalls. High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 23 Figure 1. Acting Responsively to Avoid Pitfalls Teacher educators who were most involved with edTPA were participating in professional development (action 1) through state trainings to increase their knowledge about edTPA, including sessions on academic language and unpacking the rubrics. At least two educators participated in edTPA external/local evaluation training. The edTPA coordinator offered instructional seminars for teacher candidates and other educators. Literacy and mathematics course instructors, those with a personal stake, were the most interested in attending the sessions, while it was reported that training was not deemed relevant for science and social studies instructors. Concerns regarding faculty lacking deep knowledge of edTPA surfaced when teacher educators discovered inconsistencies in their feedback and scores of candidates’ work. As fewer educators became involved, teacher educators left with the responsibility realized that the program had fewer experts to share the workload. Researchers have noted similar responses and reactions from teacher educators to a mandate, noting their compliance rather than inquiry (Kornfeld et al., 2007) and considered educators’ stages of concern, recognizing consequences for candidates, themselves, and their program (Many et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2017). Educators agreed that edTPA components were a benefit in professionalizing the teaching force as advocated by other education reformers (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Hyler, 2013; Wei & Pecheone, 2010); however, they had a difficult time making up their minds about their overall perception of the assessment as a measurement tool. Educators capitalized on the benefits of edTPA by embedding authentic opportunities (action 2) in some of the coursework, in workshops, and in authentic school settings. Including edTPA components that added value, literacy and mathematics teacher educators promoted educative opportunities and supports for teacher candidates in coursework to decrease anxiety and increase self-efficacy, an ideal response. Even though educators wrestled with their tensions associated with their identified edTPA limitations, finding alignment with their personal practice and program identity increased their engagement. Due to department reorganization and varying faculty knowledge of edTPA, educators removed Pitfalls 1. teaching to the test 2. resisting/decreasing engagement 3. lacking knowledge 4. missing focus for change Action 1: Participate in ongoing professional development Action 2: Embed strategies and assignments throughout coursework Action 3: Collaborate to learn and to integrate across content areas Action 4: Use data to identify program and candidate strengths and needs Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 24 assignments from coursework and offered them in workshops, outside of coursework. Facilitated by the edTPA coordinator, workshops already included instructional practices to prepare candidates. With this approach, the program assignments appeared like edTPA-prep or teaching to the test outside of coursework, a noted pitfall, and placed added pressure on the edTPA coordinator. Similarly, others have indicated that teacher educators can avoid this type of response by intentionally integrating edTPA components across coursework, developing a strong knowledge- base, engaging multiple course instructors, and promoting educative experiences for candidates throughout the program (Miller et al., 2015; Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016; Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). Although teacher educators discussed ways for collaborating with their colleagues to integrate across the content areas (action 3), the practice was not sustainable. As course instructors realized that the content areas of focus in elementary education were based on the state selected handbook, edTPA in Elementary Education, emphasizing literacy and mathematics, educators reported that integration in other content areas seemed less important. Teacher candidates were required to select literacy and mathematics common core standards as the primary objectives, or their portfolios would earn an incomplete for not meeting edTPA handbook requirements. Another educator indicated equal concern, especially since teacher candidates were using informational texts in reading, a focus area in literacy and compatible with integration across other content areas. Due to some instructors’ perceptions of the scope of the edTPA tasks, as a limiting factor, rather than the importance of the underlying components, teacher educators missed an opportunity to improve teacher preparation. Fewer educators remained involved in the initiative decreasing the professional capital available to their teacher candidates (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013). Although maximizing educative opportunities for candidates in a high-stakes context adds undue stress on both faculty and candidates, considering the challenges navigated by these educators, others may avoid similar pitfalls and create networks for collaborating and learning together (Peck et al., 2014). Finally, teacher educators identified that using data to identify program and candidate strengths and needs (action 4) was beneficial for program improvement. Even though they regularly reviewed their program data reports, educators intentionally used edTPA data for setting program improvement goals by referring to variation in specific rubric mean scores which they found beneficial in narrowing their focus. Teacher educators identified specific areas they needed to target, such as “analyzing data across the whole class” and “student use of feedback.” In fact, teacher educators used this information to modify data analysis assignments in two specific courses in literacy and in mathematics and avoided the pitfall of missing a focus for change. These educators also expressed tensions at the program endpoint with giving feedback on candidate work and following up on candidate use of the feedback, considering the edTPA rules for providing candidate support, as also noted in the literature (Ratner & Kolman, 2016). By giving formative feedback, embedded in coursework, teacher candidates are afforded many opportunities to use the feedback as they construct knowledge and increase their self-efficacy prior to the endpoint (Whittaker & Nelson, 2013). As more educators become involved in understanding edTPA through data use, the pitfall of teaching to the test may be avoided and program changes may promote improvement. Consistent with the Ledwell and Oyler (2016) inquiry, teacher educators in this study identified minor curriculum revisions, such as planning sequential lessons and focusing on assessment practices. The identification of new course curriculum included the following: a new lesson plan format, educative strategies/course modifications, a redesign of seminars/workshops, and edTPA as the culminating assessment in student teaching (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016). Researchers agree that engaging in data use increases faculty engagement and promotes opportunities for program improvement/renewal (Pecheone & Whittaker, 2016; Peck & McDonald, 2013; Sloan, 2013, 2015). High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 25 Implications Teacher educators in the elementary-education program demonstrated thoughtful intentions for the preparation of their candidates in response to a high-stakes state mandate. Preparing candidates who would become effective teachers was their primary goal; however, ensuring that candidates were successful on edTPA became a close second. By using proactive strategies for acting responsively and for avoiding pitfalls, teacher educators are afforded opportunities to improve teacher preparation, while under a mandate. Structures of support at the department and college levels are additional factors for consideration in order to increase the sustainability of edTPA implementation, engage faculty, and support teacher candidates (Peck et al., 2014; Sloan, 2013). Department Administrators While considering faculty voice and choice regarding course/program preference and academic freedom, department level administrators may pause to consider faculty responsibilities and their level of involvement in initial teacher preparation programs. As teacher educators participate in edTPA professional learning, developing expertise that will support teacher candidate learning throughout the program, increasing cohesiveness, administrators may think carefully about consequences for programs and candidates when faculty are moved into other assignments/roles (e.g., teaching graduate courses). Not only will the level of knowledge provided by these faculty be afforded to the program any further; but also, fewer people will be available to sustain continuous candidate support and program improvement. Additionally, the role of the edTPA coordinator must be addressed by administrators, especially when much of teacher candidate preparation resides on the coordinator to facilitate edTPA development in workshops held outside of coursework in seminar format. With an unexpected loss of the coordinator, the sustainability of support for candidates and program continuity may be in jeopardy. College Administrators If resources (i.e., people, processes) are not available at the department level, then college administrators may consider support at the college level by considering ways to provide on-going professional development to maintain/increase the knowledge pool of teacher educators, newly hired educators, and part-time instructors who may vary in teaching assignments in the initial teacher preparation programs. Considering the few number of educators with edTPA knowledge/expertise, without a consistent on-going plan for professional development, existing faculty may become overburdened. Furthermore, professional development is needed for all stakeholders, as school- based personnel, as in this case, may lack knowledge of edTPA and how to support candidates with implementation strategies. College administrators’ assistance in meeting with school-based personnel proved to support teacher educators and candidates when they addressed teachers’ concerns about candidates being pulled from their field placements to write their edTPAs. Also noteworthy, the college infrastructure was both supportive and non-supportive of the edTPA initiative. The infrastructure created to support teacher candidates (e.g., the edTPA submission process) was perceived as effective by the teacher educators. However, thinking that departmental reorganization would support teacher educators, the college administrators did not anticipate that the new arrangement would provide increased difficulty for educators to collaborate and to agree on course ownership. Similarly, other researchers have indicated that college infrastructure supports are needed to alleviate faculty concerns and to support teacher candidates in the edTPA implementation process (Many et al.., 2019; Tanguay et al., 2019). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 26 Policy Makers Policy makers may benefit in understanding that teacher educators need time to understand the benefits and liabilities of a teacher performance assessment, such as edTPA, to act responsively and to avoid pitfalls in the best interest of their candidates and to improve their programs. Furthermore, they may consider the power issues at stake for teacher educators who may not have taken part in conversations for policy setting. Valuing the voices of educators in shaping policy over time may prove to help educators develop an understanding of (a) the assessment’s body of knowledge as compared to educators’ philosophical approaches to teacher education; (b) reasons for enacting the policy and its appropriateness/capability for addressing that purpose; and (c) the developmental needs of novice teacher candidates and the necessary supports within academically challenging programs. Infrastructures of support and professional development are needed for all program stakeholders to prepare for the assessment, to support curriculum change, and to improve programs. Providing time for innovation and multiple perspectives, educators may provide a reasonable timeline for edTPA implementation and educative use. By learning more about teacher performance assessment, understanding the obstacles faced by the educators and their responses, others may consider alternate responses to inform policy development. Acknowledgements The author recognizes and appreciates the contributions of the participants in this study and their willingness to inform work and policy related to the implementation of teacher performance assessments in high-stakes contexts. References Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall. Bunch, G. C., Aguirre, J. M., & Tellez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on high-stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103-128. Caughlin, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Observation and teacher quality: Critical analysis of observational instruments in preservice teacher performance assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114541546 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. Chung, R. R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 7-28. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards and evidence: Aspirations for educator preparation. Author. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k- 12/reports/2010/10/19/8502/evaluating-teacher-effectiveness/ Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2013, Summer). The role of performance assessment in developing teaching as a profession. Rethinking Schools, 10-15. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114541546 https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2010/10/19/8502/evaluating-teacher-effectiveness/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2010/10/19/8502/evaluating-teacher-effectiveness/ High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 27 Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. MacMillan. Dover, A. G., & Schultz, B. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. The Educational Forum, 80, 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1102368 Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Routledge. Georgia Professional Standards Commission (2016). Pedagogy Assessments. Retrieved from https://www.gapsc.com/Certification/CertificationLicensureAssessments/pedagogyAssess ments.aspx Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12 (1), 51-70. Retrieved from http:/www.jstor.org/stable/3216216 González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge. Grossman, P. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 10-23. Guaglianone, C. L., Payne, M., Kinsey, G. W., & Chiero, R. (2009). Teaching performance assessment: A comparative study of implementation and impact amongst California State University Campuses. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 129-148. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. Journal of Staff Development: The Learning Forward Journal, 34(3), 36-39. Kornfeld, J., Grady, K., Marker, P. M., & Ruddell, M. R. (2007). Caught in the current: A self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program. Teachers College Record, 109, 1902-1930. Ledwell, K., & Oyler, C. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “Standardized” test: The edTPA as a gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67, 120-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115624739 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Lit, I. W., & Lotan, R. (2013). A balancing act: Dilemmas of implementing a high-stakes performance assessment. The New Educator, 9, 54-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751314 Many, J. E., Bhatnagar, R., Tanguay, C., Favors-Welch, S., Thomas, C., Cannon, S., Ogletree, T., Kim, J., Howrey, S. An, S, Kurz, K., & Wilson, J. (2019). State-wide implementation of edTPA in preparation for high-stakes testing: A mixed-methods study of the concerns of edTPA coordinators. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(122). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4460 Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2013). National assessments for student teachers: Documenting teaching readiness to the tipping point. Action in Teacher Education, 35, 272-285. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01626620.2013.827602 Mehta, J., & Doctor, J. (2013). Raising the bar for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 8-13. Meuwissen, K. W., & Choppin, J. M. (2015). Preservice teachers’ adaptations to tensions associated with the edTPA during its early implementation in New York and Washington states. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(103), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2078 Miller, M., Carroll, D., Jancic, M., & Markworth, K. (2015). Developing a culture of learning around the edTPA: One university’s journey. The New Educator, 11(1), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1102368 https://www.gapsc.com/Certification/CertificationLicensureAssessments/pedagogyAssessments.aspx https://www.gapsc.com/Certification/CertificationLicensureAssessments/pedagogyAssessments.aspx https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115624739 https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751314 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4460 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2078 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 28 Okhremtchouk, I. S., Newell, P. A., & Rosa, R. (2013). Assessing pre-service teachers prior to certification: Perspectives on the performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(56), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n56.2013 Okhremtchouk, I., Seiki, S., Gilliland, B., Ateh, C., Wallace, M., & Kato, A. (2009). Voices of pre- service teachers: Perspectives on the performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18, 39-62. Pecheone, R. L., & Whittaker, A. (2016, April). Well-prepared teachers inspire student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(7), 8-13. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721716641641 Pecheone, R. L., Whittaker, A., & Klesch, H. (2016). Educative assessment and meaningful support: 2015 edTPA Administrative Report. Stanford Center for Learning, Assessment, and Equity. Peck, C.A., Galluci, C., & Sloan, T. (2010). Negotiating implementation of high-stakes performance assessment policies in teacher education: From compliance to inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109354520 Peck, C. A., & McDonald, M. (2013). Creating “Cultures of Evidence” in teacher education: Context, policy, and practice in three high-data-use programs. The New Educator, 9, 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751312 Peck, C. A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8-30. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p8-30 Prior, L. (2003). Documents in social research: Production, consumption and exchange. Sage. Qian, G., Fayne, H., & Lieman, L. (2017). Faculty investment in student success: A four year investigation of edTPA implementation. In J. Many & R. Bhatnagar (Eds.), Implementing and analyzing performance assessments in teacher education. Information Age Publishing. Ratner, A. R., & Kolman, J. S. (2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teacher educators’ mediation of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(35), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2112 Sato, M. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542518 Sloan, T. (2013). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Implementation of a teaching performance measure. The New Educator, 9, 29-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751313 Sloan, T. F. (2015). Data and learning that affords program improvement: A response to the U.S. accountability movement in teacher education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14, 259-271. https://doi.org/1007/s10671-015-9179-y Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2016). About edTPA: Project status. Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa#Overview-0 . Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2017). edTPA Elementary Education Assessment Handbook. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., & Struthers, K. (2013). Putting PACT in context and context in PACT: Teacher educators collaborating around program-specific and shared learning goals. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall, 135-157. Tanguay, C. L., Many, J. E., Ariail, M., Bhatnagar, R., & Emerson, J. (2019). An organic model for edTPA exploration and implementation. In K. K. Winter, H. H. Pinter, & M. K. Watson (Eds.). Performance-based assessment in 21st century teacher education (pp. 42-80).IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8353-0 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n56.2013 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721716641641 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109354520 https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751312 https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p8-30 https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2112 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542518 https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751313 https://doi.org/1007/s10671-015-9179-y http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa#Overview-0 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8353-0 High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 29 Tuck, E., & Gorlewski, J. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A participatory policy analysis. Educational Policy, 30, 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616483 Van Es, E. A., & Conroy, J. (2009). Using the performance assessment for California teachers to examine pre-service teachers' conceptions of teaching mathematics for understanding. Issues in Teacher Education, 18, 83-102. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wei, R.C., & Pecheone, R.L. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). Jossey Bass. Whittaker, A., & Nelson, C. (2013). Assessment with an “end in view.” The New Educator, 9, 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751315 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616483 https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2013.751315 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 30 Appendix A Interview Protocol Introduction: In several U.S. states, teacher preparation program educators are required to incorporate a teacher performance assessment, such as the edTPA, as a requirement for teacher certification, for program completion, and in some cases, for graduation. 1. How would you describe the edTPA? 2. How have you been involved with edTPA? ▪ Probe: How would you describe your roles and responsibilities for edTPA in your program? ▪ Probe for additional informants: How would you describe the use of the edTPA in your courses/field experiences? 3. How would you describe your program’s response to the statewide adoption of edTPA? 4. Tell me some things that you like and/or may not like about edTPA. 5. Does the edTPA align with the purpose and mission of your program? If yes, how so? If no, why? 6. What do you see are the effects of the edTPA? ▪ Probes: on your program? On the curriculum? ▪ Probes for additional informants: on your learning? On your teaching? On teacher candidates’ learning/ on your teacher candidates’ teaching? 7. Have you made any changes because of edTPA? If yes, how so? If no, why? 8. How are teacher candidates prepared for edTPA? ▪ Probes: By task? By course? In field experience/student teaching? 9. What do you believe teacher candidates need to be successful on the edTPA? ▪ Probe: How do you think that should be provided? 10. Has your approach to teacher preparation changed since edTPA? If yes, how so? If no, why? 11. As a measure of teacher candidates’ teaching effectiveness, how would you describe the edTPA? 12. Do you believe the edTPA will make your teacher candidates better future elementary teachers? If yes, how so? If no, why? 13. Do you believe the edTPA improves teacher preparation? If yes, how? If no, why not? 14. What is your overall opinion of the edTPA? Do you have any final thoughts that you would like to share? Appendix B High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 31 Document Review COURSE ASSIGNMENT CHANGES Title Before edTPA After edTPA Point in Program & Facilitator Description of change 3a. Assessment and Correction in Mathematics Education Syllabi ECE 4250 Fall 2012 ECE 4250L (in lab) ECE 4250 Fall 2016 ECE 4250L (in lab) Block 3; Course Instructor Additional assignment: • edTPA Whole Class Analysis: candidates work in pairs (or groups of three) to analyze whole class learning related to a specific mathematics topic using a class set of work samples. Candidates create an evaluation criteria specific to the mathematical topic and skill that is being assessed. Pairs respond to edTPA question prompts for Task 4: 1a-c. 3b. Mathematics Case Study Rubric (Basic Facts) ECE 4250 Spring 2013 ECE 4250 Fall 2014 Block 3; Course Instructor 2014 Rubric is inclusive of the evaluation of the added edTPA-like whole class analysis assignment: • Analyzing student understandings • Analyzing student work samples • Reflection on teaching 3c. Assessment and Correction: Reading Education Syllabi LIT 4250 Summer 2014 LIT 4250 Spring 2017 *new assign- ment summer 2016 Block 3; Course Instructor; edTPA Coordinator Summer 2014: This 2014 Reading syllabus includes the Reading Case Study assignment and Parent Conference including the written report. It does not include the spring 2017 assignments aligned closely to TASK 1 and TASK 3 in Literacy. Spring 2017: The first three assignments have been modified since 2014 to be more specific to edTPA requirements – identifying a key strategy aligned to an assessment and with analysis of student learning. 1. Literacy Case Study: includes a strategy of focus, aligned to the edTPA Literacy TASK 1. Evidence will be collected and analyzed for the case study report, aligned to edTPA Literacy TASK 3; reflection questions/prompts added 2. Literacy Tutoring Summary Report for Parents/Guardians and Conference 3. Literacy Clinic Session Plans, Reflections. Lesson plan template and reflection questions. Candidates create plans identifying a central focus aligned to Common Core Standards and one component of reading instruction, aligned to edTPA constructs in literacy. Three new assignments focused on edTPA Literacy TASK 1 & 3 in 2017: • NRP Group Presentations • Assignment Comprehension Strategy and Research/Theory Activity (Google Doc – Unpacking Reading Content Standards K-5) – *first taught summer 2016 – completed end of Block 2 Workshop edTPA language includes: language function, unpack the standard, identify strategy and related skills, language demands and supports. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 32 Instructional supports are described as graphic organizers, anchor charts, teaching posters, sentence stems, foldable, etc.; Research/theory component related to the teaching of the comprehension standard, strategy, or skills. Comprehension is the focus of the Elementary Education edTPA Handbook. • Class Work Analysis Activity - analysis of a set of class work in Literacy – aligned to TASK 3 Assessment in Literacy. 3d. Literacy Case Study Rubric Fall 2016 Block 3 (embedded in LIT 4250); Course Instructor; edTPA Coordinator Rubric evaluation with emphasis on TASK 3 edTPA assessment and academic language use criteria: alignment of assessment to standard; evidence of results; chosen strategies and skills for instruction; evidence of progress of student learning; summative assessment; alignment to instruction; written feedback - strengths and weaknesses; student’s use of academic language (language function, syntax, and vocabulary) to develop content understandings; next steps for targeted support; justification with research and theory 3e. Literacy Tutoring Case Study 2012 Fall 2015 Block 3 (embedded in LIT 4250); Course Instructor; edTPA Coordinator Modified Literacy Case Study: includes a strategy of focus, aligned to edTPA Literacy TASK 1. Evidence will be collected and analyzed for the case study report, aligned to edTPA Literacy TASK 3; reflection questions/prompts added 3f. Teaching Internship Seminar Syllabi ECE 4280 Fall 2014 ECE 4280 Fall 2016 Block 4 Student Teaching Seminar; edTPA Coordinator Added assignments to fall 2016: • edTPA Portfolio Checklist – assignment worth 100 points for completion • Service Learning Project – not related to edTPA 3g. Teaching Internship ECE 4285 Spring 2015 ECE 4285 Spring 2017 Block 4 Student Teaching; edTPA Coordinator Modified/added assignments to spring 2017: • Candidates teach two formal lessons and the (3-5) edTPA Literacy learning segment in field and reflect on its completion instead of the 7 lesson plans for role reversal assignment. • edTPA is included as an assignment and requirement for external scoring. 3h. Probability and Statistics for P-8 Teachers N/A; no change evident after edTPA MATH 4712 Fall 2016, Spring 2017 Block 3; Course Instructors Changes have not been made to syllabi; however, interview data indicated that a change is in process – added focus on data analysis of student learning. PROGRAM WORKSHOPS Title Before edTPA After edTPA Point in Program Description of change High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 33 3i. Block 2 Training Activity: Learning Segment and Planning Commentary Assignment 2014 Revised Summer 2016 End of Block 2 Workshop (LIT 3262: Teaching Content/Pro cess: Reading Ed but taught in workshop); edTPA Coordinator Group project practice opportunity (TASK 1 Planning support): candidates write a learning segment of 3 lessons using your lesson plan format. They use the Context for Learning given to their group. The planning commentary will be completed on the learning segment they create. They will choose one of the following language functions: analyze, argue, categorize, compare/contrast, describe, explain, interpret, predict, question, retell, summarize, or infer. The learning segment will be based on a Common Core Reading standard for the grade level their groups decides upon. 3j. TASK 2 Note Page None 2015 Block 2 & 3 Workshops; edTPA Coordinator Practice opportunity (TASK 2 Instruction support); candidates practice videotaping lessons and upload to TK20. They complete a self-assessment and to a peer evaluation. To select video clips, they use the note page as they view their learning segments noting instances as follows: • Emphasis on promoting positive learning environment • Emphasis on student engagement in learning • Emphasis on deepening student learning: facilitates student-centered discussions; elicits and builds on students’ responses to extend and clarify thinking; • Encourages students to evaluate their own abilities • Emphasizes feedback and support to students 3k. TASK 2 Video Clip Note-taking None 2015 Block 2 & 3 Workshops; edTPA Coordinator Practice opportunity (TASK 2 Instruction support); candidates use form after they have selected two video clips. Candidates write down time stamps (beginning and ending) to use as a guide in responding to commentary prompts. 3l. edTPA TASK Overview PowerPoints None 2015 End of Block 3 Workshop; edTPA Coordinator Overview of TASKS: candidates access and review PowerPoints online before meeting at the end of block 3 workshop. 3m. Notebook Resource None 2016 Block 3 Workshop; edTPA Coordinator TASK resource support: chart includes directions for the candidate to compile the most important edTPA resources in a 3-ring binder: Making Good Choices, Understanding Rubric Level Progressions, edTPA Handbook, edTPA Templates, Context for Learning, Commentaries. 3n. Boot Camp Writing Days None 2015 Block 4 Student Teaching Workshop; edTPA Coordinator Internship (student teaching) writing days: four full days planned by the edTPA Coordinator and not included in seminar course. A timeline with the dates is sent to candidates for writing days and a suggested pacing of weeks to complete edTPA. PROGRAM AND COLLEGE DOCUMENTS Title Before edTPA After edTPA Point in Program Description of change Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 34 3o. Lesson Plan Format 2012 Fall 2015 *Introduced Block 1 in Classroom Management course (ECE 3281: Practicum 1) Incorporated in Block 3 - LIT 3263: Teaching Content/Pro cess: Integrating Literacy Education and the Writing Process; Course Instructors Modified lesson plan template to include the following: • Academic language component of edTPA • More specific directions in the Assessment section to include identification of student work samples, evaluation criteria, and evidence of alignment to the learning objective. Formative and summative language is also added as used in the edTPA. • Chart to breakout the Assessment components • Engage and motivate - edTPA like language • New edTPA like language and questions in the Instruction section: instructional strategies and learning tasks, academic learning and personal/cultural/community assets, engagement of students. • edTPA like language: opportunity to practice, application of lesson content/practice • Chart to breakout specific evidence of strategies/skills used to differentiate instruction for diverse learners. edTPA-like language includes: IEP/504, ELL/ESOL, struggling learners • Emphasis on strategy of focus – edTPA like language 3p. Wiki document none 2015 Program Resource; edTPA Coordinator Candidates, faculty, and supervisors have access to handbooks, templates, other edTPA resources, including pacing timeline. 3q. ECE BSED Assessment Results 2014- 2015 No access Program Document; Web Resource Data results for Literacy Learning Segment (READ 3262) – Context for learning “Knowledge of Students” - lowest scoring Data results for Literacy Case Study (READ 4251) - Feedback to Guide Further Learning Explain how the analysis guided instruction. Cite research and/or theory to support your decision – lowest scoring 3r. ECE BSED Program Map and Detailed Program Map No access 2016- 2017 Program Document; Web Resource An overview of the program of study. Detailed program map includes names of courses and credit hours. 3s. Early Childhood through Secondary – Our Vision, Our Mission No access 2017 Program Document; Faculty Vison statement alignment to edTPA constructs: • Innovative teaching practices, educational research, community engagement, creative activity (edTPA rubric alignment TASK 1, 2, 3, instructional strategies, theory and research) • Appreciation for diverse populations and perspectives (edTPA rubric alignment – respect for diverse perspectives, TASK 1) Mission statement alignment to edTPA constructs: • Leaders who value diversity (edTPA rubric alignment – values diversity), TASK 1 High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 35 • Possess knowledge, skills, and dispositions to positively affect change (edTPA emphasis on student learning outcomes) • Academically rigorous, inclusive, and supportive learning environments (academically rigorous – state standard alignment; support learning environment – edTPA rubric alignment – TASK 2 and state standard alignment) • Acknowledge and embrace the contributions of all groups within our diverse society – groups formed by: gender, ethnicity, race, culture, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability, personal experience (aligned to edTPA rubrics re: knowledge of students TASK 1) • Benefit of all, combination of many voices and work; equality, social justice (edTPA alignment to equity, TASK 1, 2, 3) 3t. edTPA Institutional Data Analysis No access June 2016 July 2017 College Document; College Admins. • Presentation of program mean scores on the edTPA in comparison to state highest and lowest averages • Provides guiding questions for program consideration of strengths, needs, and course activities that might address areas for improvement • Provides information for faculty regarding condition codes, rules for submission, and vouchers 3u. edTPA Partner Schools PowerPoint none Spring 2017 College Document; College Admins. • Presented to teachers in Professional Development Schools • Used to clarify roles and guidelines for acceptable candidate support • Addressed fall 2016 teachers’ comments regarding their uncertainty of the depth and type of involvement permitted Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 36 About the Author Carla Lynn Tanguay Georgia State University ctanguay@gsu.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1146-4148 Carla L. Tanguay, Ph.D. is a clinical assistant professor at Georgia Stat e University in the Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education. Dr. Tanguay is the Associate to the Dean for Clinical Practice and supports initial teacher preparation programs in the areas of teacher performance assessment and clinical practice. She serves on the Georgia edTPA Policy & Implementation Advisory Committee and is the Chair of the Assessment and Accreditation Committee in the College of Education and Human Development. Her scholarly interests include teacher development, teacher induction and retention, assessment, program evaluation, and educational policy. education policy analysis archives Volume 28 Number 53 April 6, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. mailto:ctanguay@gsu.edu https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-1146-4148%3Flang%3Den&data=02%7C01%7Cctanguay%40gsu.edu%7Cae98100cf3404a43a70708d76a0cb02f%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637094475033654677&sdata=o4FKyBDog2124WxAEtnhqpzmkVtz8cNdeHrhIN1%2FdJU%3D&reserved=0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 37 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevenot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 53 38 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo-Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), César Lorenzo Rodríguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') High-Stakes Assessment in Elementary Education Teacher Preparation 39 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado, (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro), Maria Lúcia Rodrigues Muller (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso e Science), Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil