This article reports on how the policy context shaped the development of two elementary preservice teachers’ (PSTs) literacy instructional practice. While student teaching emergent bilingual students in urban, high-poverty classrooms that utilized mandated scripted literacy curriculum, PSTs completed edTPA, a Teacher Performance Assessment, for their credential. Participants’ edTPA lessons represented the only time PSTs taught literacy outside the mandated curriculum’s script and in ways that were more aligned with their—and their teacher education program’s—ideals. Findings from this study show that it might be possible for PSTs and teacher educators to appropriate edTPA for their own purposes.
AdkinsA.SpesiaT.SnakenborgJ. (2015, July22). Rebuttal to Dover et al. (ID Number. 18041). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
2.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2013). The changing teacher preparation profession. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (n.d.). edTPA. Available from http://edtpa.aacte.org
4.
AndersonL.StillmanJ. (2011). Student teaching for a specialized view of professional practice? Opportunities to learn in and for urban, high-needs schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 446-464.
5.
AndersonL.StillmanJ. (2013). Making learning the object: Using cultural historical activity theory to analyze and organize student teaching in urban high-needs schools. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-36.
6.
AppleM. W. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
AuW. (2013). What’s a nice test like you doing in a place like this? The edTPA and corporate education “reform.”Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 22-27.
8.
BehneyJ. (2016). Perceived influence of cooperating teachers on edTPA performance. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 271-286.
9.
BerlakA. (2010). Coming soon to a credential program near you: National exit exams. Rethinking Schools, 24(4), 41-45.
10.
ButlerM. (2015). Three ways edTPA prepared me for the classroom: A capstone, performance-based assessment challenged this new educator to stretch his practice. Educational Horizons, 93(3), 30.
11.
ChiuS. (2014). edTPA: An assessment that reduces the quality of teacher education. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 28-30.
12.
ColeM. (1999). Cultural psychology: Some general principles and a concrete example. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 87-106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CroccoM. S.CostiganA. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512-535.
14.
CronenbergS.HarrisonD.KorsonS.JonesA.Murray-EverettN. C.ParrishM.Johnston-ParsonsM. (2016). Trouble with the edTPA: Lessons learned from a narrative self-study. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 8, 109-134.
15.
Darling-HammondL. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
16.
Darling-HammondL.HylerM. E. (2013). The role of performance assessment in developing teaching as a profession. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 10-15.
17.
Darling-HammondL.NewtonS. P.WeiR. C. (2012). Developing and assessing beginning teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance assessments. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
18.
DiamondJ. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106, 1145-1176.
19.
DoverA. G. (2018). Your compliance will not protect you: Agency and accountability in urban teacher preparation. Urban Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0042085918795020
20.
DoverA. G.PozdolT. (2016). Teaching good kids in a m.A.A.d world: Using hip-hop to reflect, reframe, and respond to complex realities. English Journal, 105(4), 43-48.
21.
DoverA. G.SchultzB. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. The Educational Forum, 80, 95-106.
22.
DoverA. G.SchultzB. D.SmithK.DugganT. J. (2015b, March30). Who’s preparing our candidates? edTPA, localized knowledge, and the outsourcing of teacher evaluation (ID Number: 17914). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
23.
EdeA. (2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success?Childhood Education, 83(1), 29-32.
24.
EdwardsA. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182.
25.
EdwardsA. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1-17.
26.
ElkoninD. (1971). Development of speech. In ZaporozhetsA. V.ElkoninD. B. (Eds.), The psychology of preschool children (pp. 111-185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
EngeströmY. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
EngeströmY. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-406). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
EngeströmY. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
30.
FuchsW. W.FahslA. J.JamesS. M. (2014). Redesigning a special education teacher-preparation program: The rationale, process, and outcomes. The New Educator, 10, 145-152.
31.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
32.
GreenblattD. (2016). Consequences of the edTPA. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 51-54.
33.
GreenblattD.O’HaraK. E. (2015). Buyer beware: Lessons learned from edTPA implementation in New York State. Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 42, 57-67.
34.
GutiérrezK. D. (2006). White innocence: A framework and methodology for rethinking educational discourse. International Journal of Learning, 12, 1-11.
35.
GutiérrezK. D.MoralesP. Z.MartinezD. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33, 212-245.
36.
HildebrandtS. A.SwansonP. (2014). World language teacher candidate performance on edTPA: An exploratory study. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 576-591.
37.
JordanA. W.HawleyT. (2016, February15). By the elite, for the vulnerable: The edTPA, academic oppression, and the battle to define good teaching (ID Number: 19461). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
38.
KleynT.LópezD.MakarC. (2015). What about bilingualism? A critical reflection on the edTPA with teachers of emergent bilinguals. Bilingual Research Journal, 38, 88-106.
39.
LachukA. J.KoellnerK. (2015). Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation. Language Arts, 93(2), 84-95.
40.
LaheyT. (2017). Collaborating to address the challenge of academic language. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 239-250.
41.
LedwellK.OylerC. (2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67, 120-134.
42.
LipponenL.KumpulainenK. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812-819.
43.
LloydG. M. (2007). Strategic compromise: A student teacher’s design of kindergarten mathematics instruction in a high-stakes testing climate. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 328-347.
44.
LunaS. M. (2016). Redefining “good teaching”: Teacher performance assessments and critical race theory in early childhood teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17, 442-446.
45.
MadeloniB.GorlewskiJ. (2013, June21). Radical imagination, not standardization: Critical teacher education and the edTPA (ID No. 17163). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
46.
MargolisJ.DoringA. (2013). National assessments for student teachers: Documenting teaching readiness to the tipping point. Action in Teacher Education, 35, 272-285.
47.
McConvilleJ. (2014). edTPA: You, too, shall pass. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 34.
48.
McKennaA. (2014). edTPA? Good grief!Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 31-33.
49.
MesmerH. A. E. (2001). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 121-142.
50.
MeuwissenK. W.ChoppinJ. 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, Article 103. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.2078
51.
MeuwissenK. W.ChoppinJ. M.Shang-ButlerH.CloonanK. (2015). Teaching candidates’ perceptions of and experiences with early implementation of the edTPA licensure examination in New York and Washington states. Rochester, NY: Warner School of Education, University of Rochester.
52.
MicekT. A. (2017). Completing edTPA: TESOL candidate performance and reflection. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(1), 85-99.
53.
MillerM.CarrollD.JancicM.MarkworthK. (2015). Developing a culture of learning around the edTPA: One university’s journey. The New Educator, 11(1), 37-59.
54.
MilnerH. R. (2012). But what is urban education?Urban Education, 47, 556-561.
55.
MilnerH. R. (2013). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 48, 163-170.
56.
MollL.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141.
57.
PachecoM. (2010). English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 292-317.
58.
Pease-AlvarezL.SamwayK. D.Cifka-HerreraC. (2010). Working within the system: Teachers of English learners negotiating a literacy instruction mandates. Language Policy, 9, 313-334.
59.
PetchauerE.BoweA. G.WilsonJ. (2018). Winter is coming: Forecasting the impact of edTPA on Black teachers and teachers of color. Urban Review, 50, 323-343.
60.
RatnerA. R.KolmanJ. S. (2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teacher educators’ mediation of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(35), 1-26.
61.
ReaganE. M.SchramT.McCurdyK.ChangT.-H.EvansC. M. (2016). Politics of policy: Assessing the implementation, impact, and evolution of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) and edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(9), 1-23.
62.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63.
Sapon-ShevinM.RobbS. M. (2017). How the edTPA disrupts relationships: Reclaiming our visions and integrity. Rethinking Schools, 31(3), 60-64.
64.
SatoM. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA?Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 421-434.
65.
SoslauE.Kotch-JesterS.JorlinA. (2015, December11). The dangerous message teacher candidates infer: “If the edTPA does not assess it, I don’t have to do it” (ID Number 18835). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
66.
Souto-ManningM. (2019, May). “Good teaching” and “good teachers” for whom? Critically troubling standardized and corporatized notions of quality in teacher education (ID Number: 22762). Teachers College Record, 121(10). Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org
67.
SpicerD. H. E. (2011). From artefact to tool: Teachers’ collective agency in school reform. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6, 359-380.
68.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
69.
Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (2016). edTPA: Elementary education assessment handbook. Stanford, CA: Author.
70.
StillmanJ. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113, 133-180.
71.
StillmanJ.AndersonL. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89, 22-37.
72.
StillmanJ.AndersonL. (2016). Minding the mediation: Examining one teacher educator’s facilitation of two preservice teachers’ learning. Urban Education, 51, 683-713.
73.
StruthersK. S. (2015). Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers’ literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
74.
TolmanC. W. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
TuckE.GorlewskiJ. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A participatory policy analysis. Education Policy, 30, 197-217.
76.
ValenciaS. W.MartinS. D.PlaceN. A.GrossmanP. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 304-322.
77.
WilliamsJ. A.HartL. C.AlgozzineB. (2019). Perception vs. reality: edTPA perceptions and performance for teacher candidates of color and White candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 120-133.
