Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Adoption of the edTPA as part of new teacher licensing and/or program approval requirements has created heated discussions among teacher educators. Among the discussion topics is the supposition that state-level bureaucrats have been the sole source of the decision to require the edTPA, with little input from the preparation programs. This article describes how a university–state agency workgroup, in response to administrative code requirements, investigated various performance measures, identified and discussed many of the controversies, and then recommended adoption of the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA/edTPA) to fulfill two assessment roles: (a) candidate licensing and (b) teacher education program evaluation. Also included is a discussion of the factors that led to the associated decisions.

Keywords

teacher preparation policy/service delivery accountability certification/licensure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (2005, October). Teachers for a New Era: Designing policy environments to support high-quality teacher preparation. WI: Teachers for a New Era. Retrieved form http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/CPRE_TNEProfile_WI.pdf

Danielson

(2011). The 2011 framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.

Dover

A. G.

Schultz

B. D.

Smith

Duggan

T. J.

(2015, September 14). Embracing the controversy: edTPA, corporate influence, and the cooptation of teacher education. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=18109

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A resource for state dialogue. Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf

Pechone

R. L.

Chung

R. R.

(2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment of California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.

Schug

M. C.

Ford

M. R.

(2013, October). How to correct our schools of ed. WPRI Report, 26(8), 1-25.

Stanford Center for Assessment Learning and Equity. (2013, November). 2013 edTPA field test: Summary report. Palo Alto, CA: Leland Stanford Junior University.

State of Wisconsin. (2000). Chapter PI 34.Wisconsin administrative code for teacher education program approval and licensing (Published under PI 35.93, Wisconsin Statutes, Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau). Madison: Department of Public Instruction, State of Wisconsin.

2011 Wisconsin Act 166. (2011, April 2). An Act to repeal 20.505 (4) (c); to renumber and amend 14.20 (2); to amend 14.20 (title), 20.525 (1) (f), 115.28 (7) (a), 115.28 (7) (e) 2., 119.04 (1) and 121.02 (1) (c) (intro.); to repeal and recreate 14.20 (1); and to create 13.94 (1) (dL), 13.94 (1s) (c) 6., 14.017 (5), 14.20 (1m), 14.20 (2) (b) and (c), 20.255 (1) (f), 20.255 (2) (q), 20.525 (1) (q), 25.17 (1) (ge), 25.79, 115.28 (7g), 115.28 (12) (ag), 115.415, 118.016, 118.19 (14), 120.12 (2m) and 121.02 (1) (c) 3.

10.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2009). Wisconsin educator preparation program approval handbook for Wisconsin institutions of higher education. Madison: State of Wisconsin, Department of Public Instruction.

11.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2011). Continuous review process work group (Final report, Wisconsin Educator Preparation Program Approval for Institutions of Higher Education). Madison: State of Wisconsin, Department of Public Instruction.

Adopting the edTPA: Cross-Systems Processes and Decisions in Wisconsin

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References