Southern Illinois News

Illinois State Board of Education, Teacher Performance Assessment Task Force met July 1.

Here are the minutes provided by the task force:

I. Call to Order/Roll Call:

Dr. Jason Helfer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and asked meeting facilitator Delaney Workman to conduct a roll call. A quorum was present.

Members Present:

Senator Tom Bennett

Dr. Kathryn Chval

Elizabeth Dampf

Dr. Vito Dipinto

Dr. Marie Donovan

Shauna Ejeh

Representative Amy Elik

Dr. Andrea Evans

Shannon Fehrholz

Jessica Handy

Dr. Terry Husband

Dr. Lori James-Gross

Dr. Christie McIntyre

Erika Mendez

Jennifer Smith

Dr. Michelle Stacy

Robin Steans

Representative Katie Stuart

Dr. Diana Zaleski

Ex-officio member appointed by the state superintendent of education: Dr. Jason Helfer

Members Absent:

Dr. John Burkey

Lori Grant

Katrina Hankison

Gloria Helin

Bob Langman

Senator Laura Murphy

Jessica Nunez

Dr. Abir Othman

Claire Siejka

Kesa Thurman-Stovall

Dr. Mary Ticknor

Others Present:

Meeting facilitator: Delaney Workman

Jill Donnel

Jen Kirmes

Suzanne Lee

Jim O’Connor

Julie Peters

Omar Salem

Cynthia Veronda

Emma Winn

II. Approval of Minutes

Dr. Helfer informed the members that there would not be a set of minutes to be approved today. Instead, members can approve the minutes during the meeting on July 15.

III. Public Comment

Dr. Helfer called for any public comment. Three individuals wished to provide public comment.

First, Julie Peters, Associate Director of the Teaching of History Program at the University of Illinois Chicago, thanked the task force members for their continued dedication to this process. She expressed that she hopes the task force will examine Wisconsin more closely to see how it handled its shift away from the edTPA.

Next, Cynthia Veronda, the Early Childhood Access for Consortium for Equity Program Coordinator at Olivet Nazarene University, expressed concerns related to the teacher shortage her local school district and the state are facing. She explained that in her current role, she sees many teacher candidates who are struggling to pass the content test. She said she supports allowing student teaching to occur prior to candidates passing the content test. She then stated that she is willing to do anything she can to ensure that certified teachers are filling the vacancies across the state.

Finally, Suzanne Lee, Associate Director of the Council on Teacher Education at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, thanked the task force for their dedication to bettering the quality of education in Illinois. She wondered if the task force has agreed on a specific purpose of a teacher performance assessment (TPA). She shared information about the educator preparation program proposal process and the required assessments, such as a student teacher evaluation. She spoke about the importance of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor relationship. She encouraged the members of the task force to keep the purpose of a TPA in mind as they make final decisions.

IV. New Business

Dr. Helfer moved on to new business and summarized the information presented and discussed during the prior meeting. He asked for members to share any thoughts or reflections they had. Hearing none, he moved forward to talking about his conversations with Ohio and Delaware.

In the first meetings with Ohio, Dr. Helfer learned that there had been major restructuring of the state agencies and costly barriers. With this, the rigor of the TPA is not currently as it was intended.

Dr. Donovan asked if it seemed like Ohio was concerned about the budget necessary to keep its assessment system going.

Dr. Helfer responded that the individuals he spoke with in Ohio were unable to fully answer that question. He continued by explaining the common theme that he is hearing -- both from the task force members and other states -- of an appropriate level of intensity. He also said a common thread from all the discussions is determining who evaluates the TPA.

Dr. Helfer moved on to sharing about the conversations he had with Delaware. In that state, there are only five educator preparation providers. Prior to a recent change, each institution used a different TPA. When Dr. Helfer asked about the pushback received from stakeholders, Delaware representatives shared that there has not been any. They explained that all of the state’s educator preparation providers are accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, so the TPA is engrained in the candidate’s preparation.

Dr. Helfer summarized his conversations with other states by reiterating to the task force that many others have done the same work that Illinois is currently doing. In that work, he has heard that one of the most important factors is determining an appropriate level of intensity. He also explained that he has heard that the evaluation of a TPA works best when there is consistency and training over time.

Dr. Donovan asked about the level of training for evaluators. She wondered if other states have shared what works best, who is involved, and more information about the training process.

Dr. Helfer answered by explaining the training process of the states he could recall. In Missouri, the task force heard that the training process was strong at first, but then weakened over time as autonomy was given to other individuals. In Ohio, training occurs annually for evaluators. With the edTPA, evaluators must complete an online set of modules and score test portfolios. Another thread that was common with evaluation and training was the notion of consistency. However training occurs, it must be consistent and frequent. Consistent and frequent training results in consistent evaluations of TPAs.

Dr. Helfer then transitioned into talking about the ways in which other states came to a decision. In Delaware, the state created communities of practice to make decisions about the TPA. Another comment was that it is important to integrate the TPA as a part of the preparation process. There was emphasis placed on not making the TPA so important and instead connecting it to a candidate’s preparation and early career learning.

Dr. McIntyre asked if the task force has determined if the TPA will be consequential for licensure or just a means of gathering feedback for professional growth.

Dr. Helfer said that his interpretation of the task force charge is that the TPA will be consequential, but that it can mean different things. For example, the TPA that is consequential for licensure can be a set of components.

Dr. McIntyre asked for further clarification. She stated that educator preparation programs already have a performance assessment embedded into their student teaching experience. She asked if the task force's work was to determine if another assessment is needed or to align student teaching performance assessments across the state.

Ms. Steans echoed that comment by reiterating that there is a lot of inconsistency among institutions and programs as far as the performance assessment itself and the evaluation of the performance assessment.

Dr. McIntyre shared information about the Ohio Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching and wondered if that, or something similar, was an option the task force could pursue. This would allow the state to gather the data needed for consistency while also allowing the institutions to maintain a level of autonomy over the assessment.

Ms. Steans responded to Dr. McIntyre’s thought by stating that the vertical alignment of the process is important. Using common language across the lifespan of an educator’s career can enable them to be more successful in the classroom.

Dr. Donovan spoke about the need to bridge the gap between preparation and teaching by saying that there is a need to hear from induction and mentoring programs across the state to inform the components of a TPA.

Dr. Evans stated that all of this reminds her that it is important to keep in mind the reason that the task force was created. There was a problem to solve, and it is important to keep in mind what that problem is.

Dr. Helfer responded by saying the task force's goal is to create a coherent licensure system. With this, there are many values to keep in mind. He said that the values are written intentionally vague so that the task force members can further explain the definitions as they see fit. The values are as follows:

• Cost

• Consistency

• Quality

• Usefulness

While keeping those values in mind, it is important to nail down a decision on how to move this process forward. A recommendation must be made at the conclusion of this committee's work. That recommendation can contain as much or as little information as the task force deems necessary. It is time to nail down the information to be included in the task force’s recommendation.

Senator Bennett responded to Dr. Helfer’s comments by emphasizing the need for a quality assessment. He recalled hearing from members of an administrator panel that they did not use any data from the edTPA to make hiring decisions. He stated that it is important to create an assessment system that helps inform hiring decisions and creates an induction and mentoring plan going forward.

Dr. Helfer thanked Senator Bennett for his comments and called upon members to share any additional commentary or questions. Hearing none, he asked if it would be helpful if he were to draft some frameworks for members to respond to.

Dr. Zaleski said that would be very helpful. She also shared a request for an appeals process as part of the draft.

Ms. Steans said that yes, it would be helpful, but it also may be helpful to spend time expanding upon the emergent values shared earlier in the meeting. She gave the group information on the many programs that exist within the state. She expressed the need to further define the values since there are many, as they can be split into many parts and read in differing ways.

Senator Bennett asked Ms. Steans for clarification on the programs in the state and asked what the number she offered meant.

Ms. Steans clarified that there are 52 institutions in the state that offer educator preparation programs. Within those institutions, there are hundreds of individual programs. She explained that with that, there is a lot of variation.

Dr. Evans asked if teachers are still evaluated for tenure after the end of their third year of teaching using the Danielson Framework.

Dr. Helfer said that districts have the autonomy to determine which evaluation system to use. Many districts use Danielson, some use Marzano, and some use other systems.

Dr. Evans responded by asking if it was possible to backward plan from the evaluation framework to determine what needs to be included in a TPA. She explained that by doing this, it helps to bridge the gap between preparation and teaching as they are being evaluated on the same components.

Dr. Helfer stated that yes, the task force will consider this as it makes its final decision. It will be important to keep in mind the overarching themes and ideas of the various evaluation models. He also said that he agrees that it is important to further define the values so that the task force knows in which direction to move forward.

Dr. McIntyre asked if the task force members could have time to synthesize the information in small groups. She said that it would be beneficial to hear the viewpoints of everyone and that small groups could help to achieve that goal.

Ms. Steans echoed the need for small group time by emphasizing that she feels some of the values mean different things than what other members have said.

Ms. Dampf shared that she also agrees. She thinks this time will make the decision-making process easier and faster once these values are defined.

Dr. Donovan agreed as well. She further explained that she is heartened to hear that good assessment practices are being discussed. Candidates need to understand the purpose, format, and content of the assessment. She explained that when working with students completing the edTPA, it was frustrating that educator preparation programs could not fully answer questions about the assessment because they did not have any control over it.

Dr. Helfer asked the group if it would be helpful to have a model in mind to respond to as he plans the small groups for upcoming meetings.

Ms. Steans said that she wishes to keep that separate. She feels it is best to have the groups focused on the emergent values first.

Dr. Helfer shared that he will create an agenda for the next meeting and a calendar to be sent to members. With this, members will be able to have an overview of all upcoming meetings.

Dr. McIntyre said that she agrees with Ms. Steans. It is important to hone down the values so that they can be used to evaluate models.

Dr. Zaleski asked if it was possible to have a rubric or some other kind of structure for these small group meetings.

Dr. Helfer responded by saying that he will draft some guiding questions for the small groups to consider. Dr. Zaleski, Ms. Steans, and Dr. McIntyre agreed that this would be helpful.

Dr. Stacy said she wants the members to keep in mind the impact of the TPA on the candidate, educator preparation program, and the state.

Dr. Evans reiterated the need to remember what the initial problem that the task force is trying to solve. She thinks that it is important to plan based on the initial problem.

Dr. Helfer answered by saying that historically there was a public trust issue. Now, there is more of a push for the assessment to demonstrate the natural behaviors of a Day 1-ready teacher. He then moved toward the end of the meeting.

V. Adjournment

Dr. Helfer asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Steans motioned for adjournment. Dr. Evans seconded. All members present unanimously agreed to adjourn.

The motion was passed.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.

https://www.isbe.net/Documents_TPA/070124-Minutes.pdf