edtpa evidence 3.a 3.g epp - accreditation :: ncate · edtpa evidence . the edtpa evidence ......

edTPA Evidence The edTPA evidence begins with the CIP matrix and timeline followed up with both fall 2013 and spring 2014 summaries and data reports. Continuous Improvement Plan

3.A Yearly Goals &

Objectives

3.G Implementation

Year

Candidate Requirements

Review Process Candidate Accountability

3.D EPP

Activities/Initiatives

3.F Human and Capital Resources

Continuous Improvement Data

Goal 1: Phase out of 6 NCDPI electronic evidences.

2012-2013

Objective 1: Complete review of pipeline candidate evidences

Fall 2012 All candidates were required to submit 6 NCDPI evidences.

EPP Faculty reviewed and approved by program.

High Stakes: Candidates required to successfully complete evidences to be recommended for a NC teaching license.

Awaited state-level process for submission and program review

Human: Time required to conduct reviews by EPP faculty, KMA, OPE Capital: None

Our EPP was asked to house and analyze the state-level electronic evidence program reviews. OPE was one of 3 official trainers for the state-level pilot. Pilot review by NCDPI made it clear that the capacity to review all candidate evidence throughout NC did not exist. While our candidates were successful, inconsistencies in training and evaluation made cross-program (Unit) analysis difficult and impacted reliability and validity.

Objective 2: Complete transition plan for remaining candidates

Spring 2013 All candidates were required to submit 6 NCDPI evidences.

EPP Faculty reviewed and approved by program.

High Stakes: Candidates required to successfully complete to be recommended for a license.

EPP engaged in initial edTPA consortium meetings and training. KMA and OPE worked with programs to determine which programs and candidates would begin

Human: EPP developed a core edTPA group to begin transition planning EPP core group attended consortium training

The Core edTPA team created a transition document to share with EPP programs and faculty. An edTPA Moodle site was created to house the transition documents in addition to training materials and edTPA handbooks for

edTPA implementation in Fall 2013 Elementary MAT volunteered for pre-pilot

Financial: The EPP redesigned SAGE to accommodate edTPA submission (approximately $25,000)

faculty. (See edTPA Evidence)

Goal 2: Develop a plan for full edTPA implementation

2013 - 2016

Objective 1: Provide additional support for faculty implementation of edTPA. Objective 2: Provide support for candidate use of edTPA.

Fall 2013 Programs volunteered to participate in the pilot edTPA administration (n=45). All other programs completed 6 NCDPI evidences.

EPP faculty, University Supervisors, and Doctoral Students reviewed edTPA artifacts developed by candidates. Each pilot edTPA portfolio was scored by 2 independent raters on the SCALE 3-point local evaluation rubrics.

Low Stakes: Candidates were required to complete edTPA artifacts and successfully student teach.

Introduced and trained faculty on the edTPA process related to the transition plan. Hired an edTPA manager to support faculty and candidates. Trained faculty and staff on SCALE local evaluation rubric. Provided Candidate support for edTPA through workshops, website, and online resources.

Scored each fall completer’s edTPA portfolio with 2 independent reviewers.

Human & Financial: EPP committed resources for an edTPA manager. ($16,000 plus tuition waiver) edTPA state consortium committed resources for faculty and staff to attend local and national edTPA training. (Approximately $10,000) Financial: EPP provided resources to purchase 100 digital cameras for candidates. (Approximately $30,000) Human: EPP provided 2 half day SCALE local scoring rubric trainings for EPP faculty and University Supervisors EPP faculty and University Supervisors volunteered to score edTPA portfolios

Data on the pilot was collected and analyzed. (See edTPA pilot evidence) The edTPA manager conducted 4 candidate training sessions. The edTPA manager created a faculty electronic warehouse (moodle) to store all relevant documents, templates, and meeting information. (accessible on site) The edTPA manager created a candidate google site to store all handbooks, templates, webinars, and training information. (See edTPA evidence) EPP analyzed fall data and created program reports based on rubrics. (See edTPA evidence)

Objective 3: Implement and

Spring 2014 All Spring completers

Our EPP used current P-12

Low Stakes: Candidates were

Trained P-12 teachers and doctoral students

Human:

EPP provided rubric analysis by program in SnapShot

Evaluate edTPA artifacts across all programs.

required to complete edTPA artifacts. (n=220)

teachers and doctoral students with teaching experience for edTPA pilot portfolio review. Each pilot portfolio was scored on the SCALE 3-point local evaluation rubrics.

required to complete edTPA and successfully student teach.

on SCALE local evaluation rubric. Provided Candidate support for edTPA through workshops, edTPA Google site, and online resources.

Scored each Spring completer’s edTPA portfolio.

EPP provided 1 half day SCALE local scoring rubric training for P-12 teachers, doctoral students, and University Supervisors Human & Financial: EPP provided resources to pay P-12 teachers and doctoral students to score spring edTPA portfolios ($25K)

Objective 4: Transition from local scored (3 point) to Pearson scored (5 point) edTPA portfolios.

Fall 2014 All completers will submit edTPA portfolios to Pearson for scoring.

All completer edTPA portfolios will be scored by Pearson.

Moderate Stakes: Candidates are required to complete, higher threshold for quality; Resubmission is required for candidates not meeting program specified criteria.

Provide Candidate support for edTPA through workshops, website, and online resources.

Financial: EPP will provide funding for the Pearson Scoring (Approximately $12k)

EPP will provide results from Pearson to programs through the SnapShot

Objective 5: Conduct review of 2014-15 data to determine EPP cut score.

Spring 2015 All completers will submit edTPA portfolios to Pearson for scoring.

All completer edTPA portfolios will be scored by Pearson. EPP will conduct an analysis of completer scores along with national data to determine an appropriate cut score.

Moderate Stakes: Candidates are required to complete, higher threshold for quality; Resubmission is required for candidates not meeting program specified criteria.


Financial: EPP will provide funding for the Pearson Scoring ($60k) Human: KMA and OPE will work with programs to create cut score policy KMA and OPE will work with programs to determine candidate remediation procedures


Objective 6: Implement EPP cutscore for licensure recommendation

Fall 2015 All completers will submit edTPA portfolios to Pearson for scoring.

All completer edTPA portfolios will be scored by Pearson.

HIgh Stakes: Candidates must meet EPP determined cut score for licensure recommendation.


Financial: EPP will provide funding for the Pearson Scoring (Approximately $12,000)


Fall 2012

• Candidates complete NCDPI Evidences

• State Pilot Review

Spring 2013

• Candidates complete NCDPI Evidences

• EPP begins edTPA review

Fall 2013

• Most candidates complete NCDPI Evidences

• edTPA pilot begins

Spring 2014

• All candidates complete edTPA -Low stakes

• EPP uses SCALE 3 point Local Rubric

Fall 2014

• First candidate submission to Pearson - Moderate stakes

• EPP provides scores to programs via SnapShot

Spring 2015

• Candidates submit to Pearson -Moderate stakes

• EPP creates cut score policy and remediation procedures

Fall 2015

• Candidates submit to Pearson - High Stakes

• EPP analyzes results

Fall2013PilotSummary

The Unit implemented edTPA for all graduating teacher candidates in Fall 2013.

Forty-two candidates were required to complete an edTPA portfolio in lieu of state

evidences for this pilot. Each candidates’ edTPA portfolio was assigned two raters and

scored according to the three point Local Rubric provided by SCALE. Each rater was

required to complete a day long rubric training in order to be qualified to review. Most

fall reviewers were faculty and university supervisors. An inter-rater reliability analysis

using Cohen’s Kappa was performed to determine consistency across raters. Two

reliability tests were conducted, and absolute score and a pass/fail score. The absolute

Kappa statistic determined the degree to which raters agreed on ratings for each of the 3

levels of scores. The pass/fail Kappa statistic determined the degree to which raters

agreed on passing (achieving level 2 or 3 for a standard), or failing (achieving level 1 for

a standard). Both calculations showed no greater than chance reliabilities for both the

pass/fail as well as the overall Kappa. The small sample size may be a factor in the

analysis. Therefore, percentages were derived from the total number of reviewers on

each rubric score to determine the overall decision of quality given by reviewers. The

following is a summary of these percentages for each department and each rubric.

Appendix A has a Unit summary table as well as an example of a program detail report.

Overall, Secondary Social Studies portfolios scored the highest percentage rate

for all 15 of the edTPA rubrics. Within these portfolios teacher candidates scored a 100%

on Rubrics 4, 6, 9, and 11. The lowest scoring rubric within this department were rubrics

12, and 15. The Special Education department candidates achieved an 81% pass rate for

all rubrics combined. Candidates achieved a 100% on rubric 11. Achievement was lowest

in the Special Education department for rubrics 9, and 15. Elementary Education

candidates achieved an 80% for their edTPA portfolios as a whole. Achievement for

rubric 7 was the highest at 96% with rubrics 2 and 13 having the lowest achievement of

67%. English as an Additional Language department achieved a 78% on their edTPA

portfolios as a whole. Rubrics 4, and 15 constituted the highest achievement at 100%.

English as an Additional Language portfolios showed achievement difficulties in rubrics

6 (50%), 7 (50%), 8 (67%), 9 (42%), and 10 (58%). Many of these rubrics scored video

excerpts that were unavailable, incorrectly uploaded, or unrelated to the rubric prompt for

this department. Finally, the Secondary English department portfolio (2 raters for 1

portfolio), showed an achievement of 77% across all rubrics. A 100% achievement rating

was given for rubrics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 15.

Each rubric was given an overall percentage to determine the highest achievement

areas and the lowest achievement areas as a college. According to raters, Rubric 4 was

achieved by the most portfolios (92%). Rubrics 1, and 3 showed achievement of 87%.

Raters determined that the portfolios were weakest on achieving the goals of rubrics 7

(71%), 9 (69%), 13 (66%), and 14 (71%).

Each program was provided with a detailed summary of their rubric scores.

Included in the report were percent at each level of each rubric as well as what specific

“look for” items were included or omitted from the portfolio. The Unit compiled and

included this information in the program reports to aid programs in program

improvement.

Overall, the Unit saw three areas where support is needed. First, candidates

struggled with some of the technology requirements. Several video clips were not able to

be viewed, had corrupt links, or were of poor quality. The Unit is providing addition

technology training in digital media, compressing video files, and camera use. In

addition, an assignment was added to the ED 312 (assessment course) for students to

practice recording and uploading small segments of instruction. The Unit has purchased

120 small video camera for check out in METRC. Candidates can check out equipment

free of charge. Second, area of support is use of academic language. Rubric data

revealed candidates struggle with academic language portions of the rubric. The Unit has

added more discussion and practice with academic language in the ED 204 course. This

course is required of all candidates. The spring 2014 sections of ED 204 included the

additional support so we should see an improvement in this area for the 2016 cohort. The

third area of improvement focuses around timing issues and logistics. The Unit provided

a timeline for programs to have students complete and submit edTPA documents. The

2013-2014 academic year was a low stakes year for candidates. Candidates were

required to submit edTPA portfolios but results were not used for graduation or licensure

purposes. Scoring for 2013-2014 was done using the local scoring rubric and candidates

were not provided rubric scores. Moving forward, academic year 2014-15, all edTPA

portfolios will be submitted to Pearson for full scoring. Although this academic year is

still low stakes, candidates must submit documents earlier than previous years. The Unit

is working with a subgroup of program coordinators to draft a semester timeline for

candidates and programs so all materials are submitted before the unit deadline. Program

requested more help with timeline creation and implementation. The edTPA timeline

actually is impacted by the student teaching year-long placement process so both

timelines are being done simultaneously to ensure a smooth transition.

The following table is the Program Summary by Rubric for the Fall 2013 administration.

Rubric

Passing Rate for All Candidates

Count of Scores at Each Level

Criteria Included from Score/ Criteria Not included from

Level above Score

%

Planning Rubrics

S1: Planning for Literacy Learning‐ How do the candidate's plans build students' literacy skills and an essential strategy for comprehending or composing text?

teacher directed.

60%

focused on practice of

skills/facts/procedures/conventions. 40%

Emerging

Performance

limited classroom students opportunities to develop subject specific understandings.

80%

81.00% 1 = 5 Level 1 included:

consistent in content errors.

40%

not aligned with learning outcomes. 20%

built on skills/facts/procedures and subject specific understandings (but may be unbalanced). 100%

Level 1 did NOT include from Level

2: aligned with learning outcomes.

0

built on skills/facts/procedures and subject specific understandings (but may be unbalanced). 88%

100%

Level 2 included: aligned with learning outcomes.

100%

built on skills/facts/procedures and subject specific

understandings (but may be unbalanced). 88%

Proficient Performance

sequenced in a learning progression across lessons 0

2 = 8


3 built on skills/facts/procedures/conventions AND deep subject specific understandings across all lessons.

88%

supportive of classroom students understanding of the relationship between skills/facts/procedures/conventions and subject specific understandings.

38%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 14

S2: Planning to Support Varied Student Learning Needs‐ How does the candidate use knowledge of his/her students to target support for students' literacy learning?

superficially aligned with learning outcomes. 56%

Level 1 included: limited or missing.

56%

did not address IEP/504 requirements. 56%

Emerging

Performance

67.00% 1 = 9

aligned with learning outcomes. 11%


2:

appropriate for the needs of the whole class.

22%

addressing IEPs/504 requirements. 78%

Level 2 included: aligned with learning outcomes.

91%


built on skills/facts/procedures and subject specific understandings (but may be unbalanced).

73%

2 = 9


designed to scaffold learning for a variety of students. 64%


3 identifying and responsive to potential misconceptions or partial understandings.

36%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 11

S3: Using Knowledge of Students to Inform Teaching and Learning‐ How does the candidate use knowledge of his/her students to justify instructional plans?

81.40%

superficial descriptions of classroom students' prior learning

80%

Level 1 included:

superficial descriptions of classroom students' lived experiences.

60%

Emerging

Performance

pervasive negative portrayals of students' backgrounds, educational experiences or family/community characteristics.

0

1 = 5


2: concrete and specific connections between tasks and prior learning.

80%

at least surface level of discussion of theory or research. 80%

Level 2 included:

concrete and specific connections between tasks and prior learning.

92%


at least surface level of discussion of theory or research.

62%

2 = 13


3 concrete, specific connections between tasks and prior learning.

15%

grounded discussion of theory or research.

100%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 11

S4: Identifying and Supporting Language Demands‐ How does the candidate identify and support language demands associated with a key literacy learning task?

81.40%

vocabulary that was only demand identified. 20%

a mismatch between language demands and language

function. 0%

Emerging Performance

Level 1 included:

a mismatch between language demands and language supports. 0%

1 = 5 a mismatch between language demands and the learning

tasks. 0%

supports that were not included or focused on vocabulary. 80%


2: language demands including function vocabulary AND discourse/syntax.

60%

supports that generally addressed vocabulary and one

other identified demand (function, discourse or syntax). 100%

Level 2 included:

language demands including function vocabulary AND discourse/syntax. 71%

Proficient

Performance

supports that generally addressed vocabulary and one other identified demand (function, discourse or syntax). 86%

2 = 13


3

supports that were strategically designed to address all language demands for students with varying characteristics and language needs.

100%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 11

A majority of assessments provided minimal evidence of

subject specific understandings. 86%

S5: Planning Assessments to Monitor and Support Student Learning‐ How are the formal and informal assessments selected or designed to monitor students' use of the essential strategy and requisite skills to comprehend or compose text?

74% Emerging

Performance

A majority of assessments were not aligned with the full scope of subject specific outcomes. 57%

Level 1 included: IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications were

not addressed. 29%

1 = 7


2: language demands including function, vocabulary AND discourse/syntax. 71%

supports generally addressing vocabulary and one other

identified demands. 100%

Level 2 included:


language demands including function, vocabulary AND discourse/syntax. 45%

supports generally addressing vocabulary and one other identified demands. 100%

2 = 11


3 supports that were strategically designed to address all language demands for students with varying characteristics and language needs.

100%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 11

Instructional Rubrics

respect. 100%

S6: Learning Environment‐ How does the candidate demonstrate a positive literacy learning environment that supports students' engagement in learning?

81.40% Emerging

Performance

disrespectful interactions. 0%

Level 1 included: disruptive behaviors. 0%

1 = 5 controlling or directive environment. 0%

minimal support for learning goals. 20%


2: the majority of assessments providing evidence of subject specific understandings. 80%

IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications were

addressed. 80%

Level 2 included:

Proficient

Performance

the majority of assessments providing evidence of subject specific understandings. 100%

IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications were addressed. 36%

2 = 11

assessments that provided evidence of the full range of



3

assessments that were used in each lesson. 9%

assessments that were differentiated so that classroom students showed understandings in various ways. 82%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 13

loose connections between tasks and the central focus. 0%

tasks that focused on low‐level content. 100%

S7: Engaging Students in Learning‐ How does the candidate actively engage students in integrating strategies and skills to comprehend or compose text?

96.20% Emerging

Performance Level 1 included:

links to prior learning or lived experiences were limited. 0%

1 = 1

classroom students were confused by links to content. 0%

rapport. 100%


2:

mutual respect. 0%

low risk. 0%

Level 2 included: rapport. 92%

Proficient

Performance

mutual respect. 92%

low risk. 100%

2 = 13

challenge. 69%


3

perspective. 69%

Advanced Performance

3 = 15

surface level questions. 100%

candidate talk. 25%

S8: Deepening Student Learning‐ How does the candidate elicit student responses to promote thinking and develop literacy skills and the essential strategy to comprehend and/or compose text?

85% Emerging


consistent or egregious content inaccuracies. 25%

1 = 4


2: questions prompting some high‐er order thinking related to subject specific understandings. 100%

Level 2 included:

Proficient

Performance

questions prompting some high‐er order thinking related to subject specific understandings. 100%

2 = 10

questions built on classroom student thinking about



3

interactions among students. 50%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 15

no attempt to teach classroom students how to use the key strategy to support comprehension or composition. 67%

a clear mismatch between or among strategies, skills, and students' readiness to learn. 33%

significant content inaccuracies within the material that would lead to student misunderstandings. 0%

S9: Subject Specific‐Subject‐Specific Pedagogy‐Elementary Literacy‐ How does the candidate support students to apply the essential literacy strategy?

85.10% Emerging


modeling of the key strategy or skills without opportunities for classroom students to practice or apply them. 0%

1 = 4


2: modeling the key strategy with limited opportunities for practice. 100%

Level 2 included:


modeling the key strategy with limited opportunities for practice. 100%

2 = 10

explicitly teaching classroom students on how to apply the strategy and provide opportunities for guided practice. 43%


3 explicitly teaching classroom students when to apply the strategy in meaningful contexts. 100%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 15

proposed changes that addressed their own behavior without reference to student learning. 67%

proposed changes suggested "more practice" or time to work on similar or identical tasks without revision. 33%

S10: Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness‐ How does the candidate use evidence to evlauate and change teaching practice to meet students' varied learning needs?

85.10% Emerging


proposed changes addressed problems with classroom student behavior and how to "fix" it. 0%

1 = 4

proposed changes addressed gaps in the whole of class

learning/understanding. 75%


2: proposed changes re‐reengaged students in new revised or additional task. 75%

proposed changes included surface level discussion of

research or theory. 75%

Level 2 included:

proposed changes addressed gaps in the whole of class learning/understanding. 67%

Proficient

Performance proposed changes re‐engaged students in new revised or

additional task. 60%

proposed changes included surface level discussion of

research or theory. 60%

2 = 15

proposed changes that were concrete, specific and

elaborated. 40%


3 proposed changes addressed gaps in student learning for different students in different ways. 60%

proposed changes were grounded in principles from

theory or research. 80%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 10

8.25

Assessment

listing correct OR incorrect answers (but not both). 20%

claims that were unsupported by work samples. 60%

S11: Analysis of Student Learning‐ How does the candidate analyze evidence of student learning?

81.40% Emerging


no alignment between assessment and objectives. 40%

1 = 5

listing both correct AND incorrect answers. 80%


2: listing some areas where the whole class excelled or struggled. 80%

75%

Level 2 included:

Proficient

Performance


listing some areas where the whole class excelled or

struggled. 86%

2 = 7


3 descriptions of classroom students' understandings and struggles citing evidence. 57%

learning trends that were related to individual or group

understandings/misunderstandings. 57%

Advanced Performance

3 = 15

listing correct OR incorrect answers. 60%


S12: Providing Feedback to Guide Further Learning‐ What type of feedback does the candidate provide to focus students?

81.40% Emerging



1 = 5

lists correct AND incorrect answers. 80%


2: lists some areas where the whole class excelled or struggled. 80%

Level 2 included:


Proficient

Performance

lists some areas where the whole class excelled or struggled. 82%

2 = 11


3

Balanced specific feedback on strengths AND weaknesses. 64%

Guides student self evaluation of strengths and

weaknesses. 82%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 11

generic discussion for the use of feedback. 78%

no discussion for use of feedback. 33%

S13: Student Use of Feedback‐ How does the candidate provide opportunities for focus students to use the feedback to fuide their further learning?

66.60% Emerging


no feedback given on samples. 33%

1 = 9


2: explicit discussion for how classroom students use feedback to improve work. 100%

Level 2 included:

Proficient

Performance

explicit discussion for how classroom students use feedback to improve work. 100%

2 = 9


3

discussion of support for student use of feedback. 22%

feedback that lead to deeper understandings of current or

future work. 78%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 9

listing only vocabulary use. 38%

S14: Analyzing Students' Language Use and Literacy Learning‐ How does the candidate analyze students' use of language to develop content understanding?

70.30% Emerging


listing language use that was not connected to identified vocabulary or other demands. 75%

1 = 8

listing and explaining students' use of vocabulary and

related function. 88%


2:

listing and explaining students' use of discourse or syntax. 100%

Level 2 included:

listing and explaining students' use of vocabulary and related function. 80%

Proficient

Performance


2 = 5


3 listing and explaining vocabulary, function, and syntax or discourse used by the whole class OR students with varied needs. 80%

language use that clearly supported content

understandings. 80%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 14

next steps that did not make sense. 0%

next steps that were not aligned to learning objectives. 100%

S15: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction‐ How does the candidate use the analysis of what students know and are able to do to plan next steps in instruction?

88.80% Emerging


next steps that presented vague information. 33%

1 = 3

listing and explaining students' use of vocabulary and

related function. 100%


2:


Proficient

Performance Level 2 included: next steps that generally attended to the whole class

needs in relation to content. 100%

discussions of research/theory that were at least surface

level. 50%

2 = 14


3 strategic support for individuals AND groups related to subject specific knowledge. 57%

next steps that were grounded in research/theory. 71%

Advanced

Performance

3 = 10

Spring 2014 edTPA Implementation Summary

The Unit implemented edTPA for all graduating teacher candidates in Spring

2014. Two hundred twenty (220) candidates were required to complete an edTPA

portfolio to be eligible for program completion. Each candidates’ edTPA portfolio was

assigned to a rater and scored according to the three point Local Rubric provided by

SCALE. Each rater was required to complete a day long rubric training in order to be

qualified to review. Most spring reviewers were cooperating teachers or university

supervisors.

Rubric score analysis is currently ongoing. Preliminary results indicate that

spring completers are outperforming fall completers on all rubrics. It is important to note

that the spring semester saw a large increase in the number of portfolios submitted.

Upon completion of the data analysis each program will be provided with a

detailed summary of their candidate rubric scores. Included in the report are percent at

each level of each rubric as well as what specific “look for” items were included or

omitted from the portfolio. The Unit compiles and include this information in the

program reports to aid programs in program improvement. Attached are the program rubric

summaries and a sample of a program report for spring 2014 administration.

Ag Ed Bus Ed ESL MAT: Elem Ed Math Mid LA

S1: Passing 93% 60% 87% 90% 87% 100%Level 1 7% 40% 13% 11% 13% 0%Level 2 29% 0% 60% 28% 31% 54%Level 3 64% 60% 27% 62% 56% 46%









Spring 2014 Program Summary of Pass Rates by Rubric

Ag Ed Bus Ed ELSMAT: Elem Ed Math Mid LA



S12: Passing 86% 100% 74% 86% 62% 85%Level 1 14% 15%Level 2 43% 80% 7% 14% 6% 62%Level 3 43% 20% 67% 49% 56% 23%

27% 37% 38%S13: Passing 79% 100% 87% 54% 88% 77%Level 1 21% 0% 13% 30% 13% 23%Level 2 50% 80% 60% 31% 69% 54%Level 3 29% 20% 27% 23% 19% 23%



Pass Rate: 85.333333 82.666667 75.333333 85.4 79.333333 84.6

Total Students Scored 14 5 15 47 16 13

Mid Sci Mid SS Sec Eng Sec Sci Sec SS Spec Ed Tech and Eng

91% 90% 90% 0% 94% 80% 85%9% 10% 10% 5% 20% 14%

26% 35% 42% 68% 50% 21%65% 55% 48% 26% 30% 64%

91% 90% 90% 0% 83% 80% 86%9% 10% 10% 17% 20% 14%

39% 60% 53% 50% 40% 36%52% 30% 37% 33% 40% 50%

87% 75% 70% 0% 94% 90% 78%13% 25% 30% 6% `0 21%57% 55% 43% 61% 70% 64%30% 20% 27% 33% 20% 14%

82% 65% 83% 0% 95% 80% 72%17% 35% 17% 6% 20% 29%65% 50% 53% 56% 40% 43%17% 15% 30% 39% 40% 29%

82% 90% 80% 0% 89% 70% 86%17% 10% 20% 11% 30% 14%17% 45% 47% 56% 30% 36%65% 45% 33% 33% 40% 50%

105% 95% 90% 0% 94% 90% 93%4% 5% 10% 6% 10% 7%

79% 60% 63% 50% 50% 43%26% 35% 27% 44% 40% 50%

87% 85% 87% 0% 88% 80% 93%13% 15% 13% 11% 20% 7%48% 60% 57% 44% 50% 79%39% 25% 30% 44% 30% 14%

78% 85% 84% 0% 89% 90% 86%22% 15% 17% 11% 10% 14%39% 60% 57% 56% 70% 57%39% 25% 27% 33% 20% 29%

87% 80% 80% 0% 89% 70% 92%13% 20% 20% 11% 30% 7%48% 55% 47% 72% 20% 21%39% 25% 33% 17% 50% 71%

Mid Sci Mid SS Sec Eng Sec Sci Sec SS Spec EdTech and Eng

69% 85% 70% 0% 95% 80% 64%30% 15% 30% 6% 20% 36%43% 50% 50% 67% 50% 50%26% 35% 20% 28% 30% 14%

91% 95% 86% 0% 100% 100% 86%9% 5% 13% 0% 0% 14%

52% 55% 43% 56% 80% 43%39% 40% 43% 44% 20% 43%

65% 90% 84% 0% 89% 90% 72%35% 10% 17% 11% 10% 29%43% 60% 57% 56% 60% 43%22% 30% 27% 33% 30% 29%

69% 55% 54% 0% 83% 90% 72%30% 45% 47% 17% 10% 29%39% 40% 37% 61% 60% 43%30% 15% 17% 22% 30% 29%

91% 65% 70% 0% 89% 80% 64%9% 30% 30% 11% 20% 36%

52% 50% 50% 39% 60% 14%39% 15% 20% 50% 20% 50%

65% 85% 83% 0% 89% 70% 78%35% 15% 17% 11% 30% 21%48% 55% 60% 50% 40% 57%17% 30% 23% 39% 30% 21%

82.666667 82 80.066667 0 90.666667 82.666667 80.466667

23 20 31 19 10 14

UG Elem World Lang

88% 100%13% 0%53% 33%35% 67%

76% 100%24% 0%60% 33%16% 67%

74% 100%25% 0%56% 33%18% 67%

85% 100%15% 0%67% 50%18% 50%

78% 100%22% 0%58% 67%20% 33%

91% 67%9% 33%

67% 50%24% 17%

97% 66%4% 33%

82% 33%15% 33%

77% 67%24% 33%64% 17%13% 50%

89% 83%11% 17%58% 50%31% 33%

UG Elem World Lang

76% 100%24% 0%56% 33%20% 67%

89% 83%11% 17%53% 50%36% 33%

80% 100%20% 0%64% 83%16% 17%

71% 83%29% 17%53% 50%18% 33%

78% N/A22%56%22%

85% N/A15%65%20%

82.266667 88.384615

55 6

Rubric

Passing Rate

for All

Candidates

Count of

Scores at

Each Level

Criteria Included from Score/ Criteria Not

included from Level above Score

%

Planning Rubrics

S1: Planning for Literacy

Learning‐ How do the

candidate's plans build

students' literacy skills and an

essential strategy for

comprehending or composing

text? teacher directed.

60%

focused on practice of

skills/facts/procedures/conventions. 40%

Emerging

Performancelimited classroom students opportunities to develop

subject specific understandings.

80%

90.00% n = 5 Level 1

included:consistent in content errors.

40%

not aligned with learning outcomes. 20%


Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2: aligned with learning outcomes.

0

built on skills/facts/procedures and subject specific 100%

Level 2

included: aligned with learning outcomes. 100%


understandings (but may be unbalanced).91%

Proficient

Performance

sequenced in a learning progression across lessons 0

n = 13

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

built on skills/facts/procedures/conventions AND

deep subject specific understandings across all

lessons.

91%

supportive of classroom students understanding of

the relationship between

skills/facts/procedures/conventions and subject

specific understandings.

36%

Advanced

Performance

n = 30

S2: Planning to Support Varied

Student Learning Needs‐ How

does the candidate use

knowledge of his/her students

to target support for students'

literacy learning?

superficially aligned with learning outcomes. 50%

Level 1

included: limited or missing.60%

did not address IEP/504 requirements. 50%

Emerging

Performance

78.00% n = 10 aligned with learning outcomes.

10%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:appropriate for the needs of the whole class.

76%


Level 2

included: aligned with learning outcomes.91%

Proficient

Performance


understandings (but may be unbalanced).73%

n = 15 addressing IEPs/504 requirements. 27%

designed to scaffold learning for a variety of

students.65%

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3identifying and responsive to potential

misconceptions or partial understandings.

35%

Advanced

Performance

n = 21

S3: Using Knowledge of

Students to Inform Teaching

and Learning‐ How does the

candidate use knowledge of

his/her students to justify

instructional plans?

89.00%

superficial descriptions of classroom students' prior

learning

80%

Level 1

included:

superficial descriptions of classroom students' lived

experiences.60%

Emerging

Performance

pervasive negative portrayals of students'

backgrounds, educational experiences or

family/community characteristics.

0

n = 5 Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:

concrete and specific connections between tasks

and prior learning. 80%

at least surface level of discussion of theory or

research.80%

Level 2

included:

concrete and specific connections between tasks

and prior learning.95%

Proficient

Performance

at least surface level of discussion of theory or

research.70%

n = 20

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

concrete, specific connections between tasks and

prior learning.10%

grounded discussion of theory or research.100%

Advanced

Performance

n = 21

S4: Identifying and Supporting

Language Demands‐ How does

the candidate identify and

support language demands

associated with a key literacy

learning task?

89.00%

vocabulary that was only demand identified. 20%

a mismatch between language demands and

language function. 0%

Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

a mismatch between language demands and

language supports. 0%

n = 5 a mismatch between language demands and the

learning tasks. 0%

supports that were not included or focused on

vocabulary. 80%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:language demands including function vocabulary

AND discourse/syntax.

60%

supports that generally addressed vocabulary and

one other identified demand (function, discourse or

syntax).

100%

Level 2

included:

AND discourse/syntax. 77%

Proficient

Performance

supports that generally addressed vocabulary and

one other identified demand (function, discourse or

syntax). 91%

n = 21

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

supports that were strategically designed to address

all language demands for students with varying

characteristics and language needs.

100%

Advanced

Performance

n = 20

A majority of assessments provided minimal

evidence of subject specific understandings. 86%S5: Planning Assessments to

Monitor and Support Student

Learning‐ How are the formal

and informal assessments

selected or designed to

monitor students' use of the

essential strategy and requisite

skills to comprehend or

compose text?

85%Emerging

Performance

A majority of assessments were not aligned with the

full scope of subject specific outcomes. 57%

Level 1

included:IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications

were not addressed. 29%

n = 7

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:language demands including function, vocabulary


supports generally addressing vocabulary and one

other identified demands. 100%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performance

language demands including function, vocabulary


supports generally addressing vocabulary and one

other identified demands. 100%

n = 18

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

supports that were strategically designed to address

all language demands for students with varying

characteristics and language needs.

100%

Advanced

Performance

n = 21

Instructional Rubrics

respect. 86%

S6: Learning Environment‐ How

does the candidate

demonstrate a positive literacy

learning environment that

supports students' engagement

in learning?

84.00%Emerging

Performance

disrespectful interactions. 14%

Level 1

included: disruptive behaviors. 29%

n = 7 controlling or directive environment. 14%

minimal support for learning goals. 29%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:the majority of assessments providing evidence of


IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications

were addressed. 86%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performancethe majority of assessments providing evidence of


IEP/504 requirements for adaptations/modifications

were addressed. 26%

n = 19

assessments that provided evidence of the full

range of subject specific understandings. 26%

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

assessments that were used in each lesson. 5%

assessments that were differentiated so that

classroom students showed understandings in

various ways. 84%

Advanced

Performance

n = 20

loose connections between tasks and the central

focus. 0%

tasks that focused on low‐level content. 100%

S7: Engaging Students in

Learning‐ How does the

candidate actively engage

students in integrating

strategies and skills to

comprehend or compose text?

96.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

links to prior learning or lived experiences were

limited. 50%

n = 2 classroom students were confused by links to

content. 0%

rapport. 100%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:mutual respect. 50%low risk. 0%

Level 2

included: rapport. 95%

Proficient

Performance mutual respect. 95%

low risk. 100%

n = 22

challenge. 68%

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

perspective. 59%

Advanced

Performance

n = 22

surface level questions. 100%

candidate talk. 57%

S8: Deepening Student


candidate elicit student

responses to promote thinking

and develop literacy skills and

the essential strategy to

comprehend and/or compose

text?

85%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

consistent or egregious content inaccuracies. 14%

n = 7

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:questions prompting some high‐er order thinking

related to subject specific understandings. 100%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performancequestions prompting some high‐er order thinking

related to subject specific understandings. 100%

n = 16

questions built on classroom student thinking about


Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

interactions among students. 56%

Advanced

Performance

n = 23

no attempt to teach classroom students how to use

the key strategy to support comprehension or

composition. 67%

a clear mismatch between or among strategies,

skills, and students' readiness to learn. 33%

significant content inaccuracies within the material

that would lead to student misunderstandings. 0%

S9: Subject Specific‐Subject‐

Specific Pedagogy‐Elementary

Literacy‐ How does the

candidate support students to

apply the essential literacy

strategy?

93.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included: modeling of the key strategy or skills without

opportunities for classroom students to practice or

apply them. 0%

n = 3

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:modeling the key strategy with limited

opportunities for practice. 100%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performance

modeling the key strategy with limited

opportunities for practice. 100%

n = 13

explicitly teaching classroom students on how to

apply the strategy and provide opportunities for

guided practice. 50%

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3 explicitly teaching classroom students when to

apply the strategy in meaningful contexts. 79%

Advanced

Performance

n = 30

proposed changes that addressed their own

behavior without reference to student learning. 43%

proposed changes suggested "more practice" or

time to work on similar or identical tasks without

revision. 57%

S10: Analyzing Teaching

Effectiveness‐ How does the

candidate use evidence to

evlauate and change teaching

practice to meet students'

varied learning needs?

89.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

proposed changes addressed problems with

classroom student behavior and how to "fix" it. 14%

n = 5

proposed changes addressed gaps in the whole of

class learning/understanding. 80%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:proposed changes re‐reengaged students in new

revised or additional task. 60%proposed changes included surface level discussion

of research or theory. 80%

Level 2

included:

proposed changes addressed gaps in the whole of

class learning/understanding. 75%

Proficient

Performanceproposed changes re‐engaged students in new

revised or additional task. 67%

proposed changes included surface level discussion

of research or theory. 71%

n = 24

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3 proposed changes that were concrete, specific and

elaborated. 30%

proposed changes addressed gaps in student

learning for different students in different ways. 54%

proposed changes were grounded in principles from

theory or research. 75%

Advanced

Performance

n = 17

8.25

Assessment

listing correct OR incorrect answers (but not both). 20%


S11: Analysis of Student


candidate analyze evidence of

student learning?

88.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:


n = 5


Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:listing some areas where the whole class excelled or

struggled. 80%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performancelisting both correct AND incorrect answers. 60%

listing some areas where the whole class excelled or

struggled. 90%

n = 10

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3 descriptions of classroom students' understandings

and struggles citing evidence. 50%learning trends that were related to individual or

group understandings/misunderstandings. 60%

Advanced

Performance

n = 28

listing correct OR incorrect answers. 67%


S12: Providing Feedback to

Guide Further Learning‐ What

type of feedback does the

candidate provide to focus

students?

86.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:


n = 6


Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:lists some areas where the whole class excelled or

struggled. 67%

Level 2

included:


Proficient

Performancelists some areas where the whole class excelled or

struggled. 81%

n = 21

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3 Balanced specific feedback on strengths AND

weaknesses. 38%Guides student self evaluation of strengths and

weaknesses. 90%

Advanced

Performance

n = 16

generic discussion for the use of feedback. 77%

no discussion for use of feedback. 31%

S13: Student Use of Feedback‐

How does the candidate

provide opportunities for focus

students to use the feedback to

fuide their further learning?

54.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

no feedback given on samples. 23%

n = 10

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:explicit discussion for how classroom students use

feedback to improve work. 100%

Level 2

included:

Proficient

Performanceexplicit discussion for how classroom students use

feedback to improve work. 100%

n = 4

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

discussion of support for student use of feedback. 27%feedback that lead to deeper understandings of

current or future work. 73%

Advanced

Performance

n = 3

listing only vocabulary use. 38%

S14: Analyzing Students'

Language Use and Literacy


candidate analyze students'

use of language to develop

content understanding?

82.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

listing language use that was not connected to

identified vocabulary or other demands. 75%

n = 8

listing and explaining students' use of vocabulary

and related function. 88%

Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:listing and explaining students' use of discourse or

syntax. 100%

Level 2

included:



Proficient

Performancelisting and explaining students' use of discourse or

syntax. 64%

n = 14

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3

listing and explaining vocabulary, function, and

syntax or discourse used by the whole class OR

students with varied needs. 64%language use that clearly supported content

understandings. 57%

Advanced

Performance

n = 21

next steps that did not make sense. 0%

next steps that were not aligned to learning

objectives. 100%

S15: Using Assessment to

Inform Instruction‐ How does

the candidate use the analysis

of what students know and are

able to do to plan next steps in

instruction?

93.00%Emerging

Performance

Level 1

included:

next steps that presented vague information. 33%

n = 3



Level 1 did

NOT include

from Level

2:listing and explaining students' use of discourse or

syntax. 100%

Proficient

Performance

Level 2

included:next steps that generally attended to the whole

class needs in relation to content. 100%

discussions of research/theory that were at least

surface level. 58%

n = 24

Level 2 did

NOT include

from Level 3 strategic support for individuals AND groups related

to subject specific knowledge. 50%

next steps that were grounded in research/theory. 75%

Advanced

Performance

n = 16

edtpa evidence 3.a 3.g epp - accreditation :: ncate · edtpa evidence . the edtpa evidence ......

Documents