kellor_performance-based licensure in connecticut.pdf

8/10/2019 Kellor_Performance-Based Licensure in Connecticut.pdf

1/45

C O N S O R T I U M F O R P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H I N E D U C A T I O N

University of Pennsylvania Harvard University Stanford University

University of Michigan University of Wisconsin-Madison

Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison1025 West Johnson Street, Room 653, Madison, WI, 53706-1796Phone 608.263.4260 Fax 608.263.6448

Performance-Based Licensure in Connecticut

Eileen M. KellorConsortium for Policy Research In Education

University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison, WI 53706

(608) 263-4260

August, 2002

CPRE-UW Working Paper SeriesTC-02-10

This paper was prepared for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Wisconsin Centerfor Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The research reported in this paperwas supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance,Policymaking and Management, to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE)

and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University ofWisconsin-Madison (Grant No. OERI-R308A60003). The opinions expressed are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute on EducationalGovernance, Finance, Policymaking and Management, Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education, the institutional partners of CPRE, or theWisconsin Center for Education Research.


2/45

1

Performance-Based Licensure in Connecticut

The origins of Connecticuts current Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST)

program can be traced to the 1980s as part of a set of integrated initiatives intended to improve student

achievement by improving teacher quality. The BEST program is an important teacher quality

initiative and part of what makes Connecticuts education reform strategy unique. Its primary use is as

a licensing tool; beginning teachers who hold an initial educator certification must successfully

complete the program requirements to be eligible for a provisional educator certificate, the second

level of the states three teaching certifications.

However, the broader mission of the BEST program is to ensure that every Connecticut

student is taught by a highly qualified, competent and caring teacher. The program also is intended to

help ensure that all beginning teachers have opportunities to strengthen their knowledge of subject

matter and instructional strategies, enhance their understanding of students as learners, and begin a

process of lifelong learning and professional growth (CDOE, 2001). This case study provides

background information on Connecticuts sustained education reform strategy, with particular focus on

the performance assessment component of the BEST program.

1. Connecticuts Education Reform Strategy: An Overview

The BEST program is one piece of Connecticuts long-term, comprehensive and multi-pronged

education reform strategy. Although one could look at BESTs features in isolation, to fully understand

the programs goals as well as the system features that support and are aligned with the program, a

basic understanding of Connecticuts education reform strategy over the past 20 years is useful. These

initiatives addressed four main goals that are still present in Connecticuts reforms and are designed to

work independently and together to improve the quality of teaching in Connecticut and thus improve

student learning. The four goals are: 1) increasing teacher salaries, 2) implementing student learning


3/45

2

standards (Common Core of Learning), 3) creating teaching standards (Common Core of Teaching),

and 4) establishing a multi-level licensure system, including four steps that must be completed to

obtain an educator license. No other state has developed and carried out a package of integrated

reforms over such a sustained period of time.

Connecticuts current vision of education reform began to emerge as early as 1981, when a state

committee on professional development identified four issues related to teacher quality that created the

foundation for future reform initiatives. The four issues were recruitment, initial preparation, induction,

and ongoing professional development. In 1985, a proposal by the states Equality and Excellence in

Education included two main approaches: teacher incentives (such as increasing teacher salaries and

induction programs for new teachers) and teacher standards. The teacher standards were envisioned in

part to include changes in teacher certification requirements, creation of a statewide teacher assessment

program, and implementation of a local teacher evaluation processes aligned with the statewide

programs. A three-tiered teacher certification system and the requirement that first year teachers

participate in a support and assessment program were included in legislation the following year. These

teacher-centered initiatives were accompanied along with increased attention to student learning, such

as content standards, a ninth grade proficiency exam, higher standards for high school graduation, and

mastery tests at grades 4, 6, and 8. (Wilson et al., 2001)

In addition, local districts were given state aid (salary grants) to increase teacher salaries during

local negotiations. The salary grants were intended to help improve teacher quality in several ways.

Most directly, the grants were used to increase teacher salaries in general, thus making teaching a more

attractive career choice. Second, the amount of the grant to a district was determined based on the

number of fully certified teachers, thereby creating a disincentive to hiring emergency credentialed

teachers. Finally, the grants were provided to districts on an equalizing basis so that less well-off


4/45

3

districts could offer higher salaries and be more competitive in the teacher market. Additional financial

incentives, such as scholarships and forgivable student loans, were also part of the early wave of

Connecticuts teacher quality initiatives, which contributed to the widespread improvement of teacher

quality across the state over the past 15 years. (Wilson, et al., 2001)

Thus, as the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policys case study of Connecticuts

sustained education reform effort concluded, the presence of strong and consistent political and

administrative leadership, accompanied by investments in [Connecticut State Department of

Education] research and development capacity. . . enabled the creation and support of interwoven

policies and programs linking teacher development and student achievement. Further, the current state

of Connecticuts education reform efforts shows how investments in teaching quality have supported

the alignment of performance-based teacher and student standards, including one of the most

comprehensive, coordinated and rigorous three-tiered teacher licensure and development programs in

the nation. (Wilson et al., 2001:5)

2. The Common Core of Teaching

The foundation of the BEST program and an integral part of the entire set of reform strategies

is the Common Core of Teaching (CCT), a set of foundational skills and competencies that

Connecticut teachers are expected to develop and demonstrate. The foundational standards are

supplemented by discipline-based professional teaching standards covering 10 disciplines: Elementary

Education, English Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Special Education, Visual Arts, and World

Languages. An important feature is that the CCT and Common Core of Learning (CCL, student

standards) are deliberately aligned, so beginning teachers become well grounded in the core teaching

and content knowledge that students need to know in order to meet the learning standards. Moreover,

because each beginning teacher has a mentor or support team at the school level, teachers in those roles


5/45


6/45

5

education faculty members, district administrators and other educational constituents for review

and comments. Connecticuts CCT reflects the ideas and contributions of countless educators

who responded with detailed comments and edits. (CSBOE, 1999:1)

The CCT are used throughout a Connecticut teachers career. In the pre-service phase, colleges

and universities preparing educators are expected to demonstrate that the education students are

knowledgeable about the teaching standards and the student learning standards, as well as the

Connecticut Mastery Tests and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test. At the next career stage,

induction, beginning teachers participating in the portfolio assessment part of BEST are expected to

demonstrate competence in both the foundational skills and competencies, and the discipline-based

professional standards. Finally, educators who are in the continuous professional growth phases after

licensure are evaluated based on standards relating to the CCT and also use the CCT as a guide in

choosing appropriate professional development that meets both individual and local district goals.

(CSBOE, 1999)

The 19 standards that comprise the cross-discipline foundational skills and competencies for

Connecticuts teachers are:

Teachers have knowledge of:

Students

1) Teachers understand how students learn and develop.2) Teachers understand how students differ in their approaches to learning.

Content

3) Teachers are proficient in reading, writing and mathematics.4) Teachers understand the central concepts and skills, tools of inquiry and structures of the

discipline(s) they teach.

Pedagogy

5) Teachers know how to design and deliver instruction.6) Teachers recognize the need to vary their instructional methods.


7/45

6

Teachers apply this knowledge by:

Planning

7) Teachers plan instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the curriculum,and the community.

8) Teachers select and/or create learning tasks that make subject matter meaningful to students.

Instructing

9) Teachers establish and maintain appropriate standards of behavior and create a positivelearning environment that shows a commitment to students and their successes.

10) Teachers create instructional opportunities that support students academic, social and personaldevelopment.

11) Teachers use effective verbal, nonverbal and media communications techniques which fosterindividual and collaborative inquiry.

12) Teachers employ a variety of instructional strategies that enable students to think critically,solve problems and demonstrate skills

Assessing and Adjusting13) Teachers use various assessment techniques to evaluate student learning and modifyinstructions as appropriate.

Teachers demonstrate professional responsibility through:

Professional and ethical practice

14) Teachers conduct themselves as professionals in accordance with the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility for Teachers (Section 10-145d-400a of the Connecticut CertificationRegulations).

15) Teachers share responsibility for student achievement and well-being.

Reflection and continuous learning

16) Teachers continually engage in self-evaluation of the effects of their choices and actions andstudents and the school community.

17) Teachers seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

Leadership and collaboration

18) Teachers serve as leaders in the school community.19) Teachers demonstrate a commitment to their students and a passion for improving their

profession.

(Source: Connecticut State Board of Education, 1999)

Most of these 19 standards are then further expanded and described to provide a clearer

understanding of what the standard means and looks like. The 1999 CCT publication includes

sections [that] explain more fully what each standard means in terms of critical knowledge, skills and

abilities. The more detailed description of [the] standards is intended to encourage professional


8/45

7

discussion of effective teaching and administration . . . [and] communicate expectations for

professional practice to prospective teachers, practicing teachers, principals, school administrators and

individuals who prepare teachers (CSBOE, 1999:4). For example, standard 1) relating to teachers

having knowledge of students states that Teachers understand how students differ in their approaches

to learning. Three additional statements further explain that:

Teachers understand how students differ in their approaches to learning by:

a) Being aware of how student learning is influenced by language, culture, heritage, family

and community values and incorporating students experiences and community

resources into instruction;

b) Learning about and utilizing strategies for building understanding, acceptance and a

positive sense of community into the classroom; and

c) Becoming knowledgeable about language development, including the process of

second-language acquisition, and employing strategies to support the learning of

students whose first language is not English.

In addition to the foundational skills and competencies, discipline-specific standards exist for

elementary education, English language arts, mathematics, music, physical education, science, social

studies, special education, visual arts and world languages. The discipline-specific standards begin to

elaborate on the relationship of the teaching standards to the student learning standards. Although the

discipline-specific standards are not grade-level specific, they cover the concepts and themes that run

through the student learning standards. For example, the discipline-based teaching standards for

teachers of mathematics specify five areas: mathematical content, mathematical tasks, mathematical

discourse, learning environment, and analysis of learning and teaching. The mathematical tasks

standard states that teachers of mathematics pose tasks that provide the stimulus for students to think


9/45

8

about mathematical concepts and procedures, their connections with other mathematical ideas, and

their applications to real-world contexts. These tasks encourage students to reason about mathematical

ideas, and to formulate, grapple with and solve problems (CSBOE, 1999:19).

The foundational standards, in conjunction with the discipline-based standards, are designed to

identify what Connecticut teachers are expected to know and be able to do, in ways that are general

across all teachers, as well as specific to the content taught and developmental level of the student. The

BEST program and its related professional development and assessment is then designed to help

teachers learn these knowledge and skills and to measure their actual deployment in the classroom.

3. Overview of the BEST Program

The BEST program includes two main components, a support component and a performance

assessment for licensure component. These components are intended to be complimentary, rather than

stand-alone features. The first element of the BEST program - the support program - is designed to

provide assistance, advice, and induction support for teachers in their first year of teaching. Moreover,

although the support function is primarily intended to benefit beginning teachers, state officials

observe that teachers who serve as mentors or on a BEST support team also construe professional

development from their involvement, both because of the training they receive in order to become

mentors, and because the process requires them to think more reflectively about instruction.

The states goal is to have all beginning teachers participate in both the support and assessment

processes. However, in some certification areas where the assessment system has not yet been

developed, beginning teachers participate only in the first year support program. As of the 2001-2002

school year, the majority of beginning teachers are in areas for which both the support and

performance assessment components are in place. The included areas are: bilingual education,

elementary education, English language arts, mathematics, middle grades, music, physical education,


10/45

9

science, social studies, special education, visual arts, and world languages. In some of these areas,

some aspects of the portfolio process are still under development and the assessment process is slightly

different than for those areas for which all aspects are complete.

Participation in the BEST Program is required for full- or part-time beginning teachers who

teach in a public school (including charter or magnet schools, regional Educational Service Centers,

and residential schools operated by the state), or an approved private special education facility, who

hold one of three certificates (initial educator, interim initial educator, temporary 90 day) or a

durational shortage area permit. Beginning teachers who are hired as long-term substitutes and are

teaching under one of the certificates noted above and in the corresponding endorsement area of that

certificate are also required to participate in the BEST program.

Because Connecticut requires that all candidates for teacher certification successfully complete

specific assessment requirements at several points in the teacher preparation cycle, by the time

beginning teachers participate in the BEST program, basic content knowledge has been assessed.

Specifically, Connecticut requires that students successfully take the Praxis I Pre-Professional Skills

Test to assess academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, beforeentering a teacher

preparation program in the state. A waiver from the Praxis I requirement may be granted to candidates

who attain scores at or above specified levels on the SAT I, ACT, or Prueba de Aptitud Academica

(PAA), including minimum scores in certain areas. (The PAA is a Spanish-language test owned by the

College Board and its scores can be equated to the SAT.) For example, for students who take the SAT,

a total score of 1100 or more is required, with a score of at least 450 in both the verbal and

mathematics section. (See Guide to Teacher Assessment in Connecticut for specific score

requirements.).


11/45

10

Most beginning teacher candidates are also required to demonstrate content knowledge in the

intended teaching area(s) by taking the Praxis II subject-knowledge test, the American Council of

Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) assessments or the Connecticut Administrator Test, and

achieving a score that meets Connecticuts cut score as of the date the test was taken. These subject

matter tests are required for individuals who are applying for a first-time issuance of a certificate in

one of the 22 endorsement areas for which a test is offered, for individuals whose Connecticut

certification has lapsed in one of the areas and are applying for a reissuance, and for people who are

currently certified in one area and are seeking endorsement in one or more areas. Finally, teachers

employed under an Initial Educator Certificate must demonstrate professional knowledge through the

BEST program.

In short, from a prospective teachers initial entry into a teacher preparation program as an

undergraduate, up to the point where she or he receives provisional educator licensure, assessments of

an increasingly specific and content-focused nature are required at multiple points in the process. By

the time a beginning teacher has graduated from a teacher preparation program in Connecticut and

completed the BEST program, his or her basic competence in both content knowledge and pedagogy

has been assessed and documented as meeting the states standards for that teaching level. State

officials view these testing mechanisms as effective in establishing and maintaining a basic level of

competence for teachers entering the teaching pool and beginning a professional teaching career in

Connecticut.

4. The Support Program

The support-only induction program is a one-year program and is a slightly leaner version of

the support phase of the portfolio induction program for other beginning teachers. The support portion


12/45

11

of the induction program primarily takes the form of school-based individual mentor or support teams.

The mentor or team is responsible for assisting the beginning teacher in four areas:

Identifying the effective teaching strategies that conform to the foundational skills and

competencies as well as discipline specific standards of the CCT

Reflecting on the effectiveness of teaching and how well students are learning

Exploring a variety of teaching strategies that address diversity in students and their learning

styles, and

Documenting the types and frequency of support provided to the beginning teacher. (CDOE,

2001)

For the majority of beginning teachers, the BEST program is two year (support and

performance assessment) program, with the support portion occurring primarily in the first year.

However, teachers who do not successfully complete the portfolio the second year may prepare a new

portfolio in the third year. The state department of education encourages districts to continue to employ

and support these teachers, most of whom do successfully complete the portfolio during the third year.

With the basic structure and origin of the BEST program now outlined, the balance of this

paper addresses the performance assessment part of BEST.

5. The Performance Assessment Process

The performance assessment part of the BEST program takes the form of a structured

instructional portfolio. Connecticuts approach of tailoring the specific portfolio content and

instructions to a discipline is akin to the method used for National Board certification candidates,

which includes a specific set of standards for each certificate area and unique but similar entries. The

resulting focus on subject matter content and content-specific pedagogy is more narrowly targeted than

the broader approach used by many other systems, e.g,. Cincinnatis, which establish a broader set of


13/45

12

teaching standards and rubrics, which then rely on subject matter specialists to reflect the content

aspects (see also, Kelley & Kimball, 2001). Although a common set of guidelines and processes apply

to the BEST program in general, detailed and specific instructions and forms for each discipline are

provided to candidates in the form of a portfolio handbook. The portfolio handbook for each discipline

is revised each year, both to reflect updated information specific to the area, as well as overall program

revisions, additional resources, and other information that is deemed useful to the person preparing the

portfolio.

For the 2001-2002 school year, beginning teachers in mathematics, science, elementary

education, music, physical education, visual arts, special education, social studies, world languages,

and English language arts are included in the performance assessment part of the BEST program,

although in some areas the benchmark performance standards were still under development. As of

Summer 2002, performance standards are established for all content areas except world languages.

(See Appendix I and II for the portfolio completion and performance standards for the 2001-2002

school year.)

The Portfolio Handbook

Each portfolio handbook follows a set format so that it presents the same information, tailored

as applicable to a particular discipline. Detailed instructions are provided to help teachers prepare the

portfolio, as well as supporting information that helps the teachers understand the alignment of their

portfolio elements and teaching standards with student learning standards. The alignment of standards

for teachers with standards for students is a key piece of the states overall education reform strategy

and is imbued throughout the portfolio preparation process.

Each handbook includes four main sections: an overview of the BEST program and letter(s) of

endorsement from the related content organization(s) (e.g., the Associated Teachers of Mathematics in


14/45

13

Connecticut), if applicable; information and materials to help teachers understand the specific portfolio

requirements; detailed guidelines for the development of the individual portfolio tasks; and a set of

appendices that includes all forms related to the portfolio development and submission, the teaching

and learning standards for the discipline, and a glossary of portfolio terms. The portfolio handbook

thus provides in one relatively short document essentially all the information needed to prepare a

portfolio, including all necessary transmittal and approval forms.

Getting Content Into the Portfolio

The BEST Portfolio Handbook for each discipline includes a Framework for the Evaluation of

the (discipline) Teaching Portfolio. The framework outlines four categories, each of which

encompasses a Guiding Question that portfolio assessors use to analyze evidence from a portfolio.

Under each Guiding Question is a set of several specific directions for teachers to follow to help ensure

their finished portfolio addresses the Guiding Questions. The handbook also includes the specific

standards for that discipline that builds on the CCT and elaborates them to relate to a particular content

area.

For example, the 2001-2002 Science Portfolio Handbook identifies four categories:

Instructional Design, Instructional Implementation, Assessment of Learning, and Analysis of Learning

and Teaching, and each has a Guiding Question. For Category I, Instructional Design, the Guiding

Question is How well did the teacher design an inquiry learning unit in which students can explore

science ideas, develop conceptual understanding and apply scientific knowledge and skills? There are

then four items under that question:

1) Describe the units conceptual structure and the main foci for students learning.

2) Describe students main sources of information and use of data to build science

understanding.


15/45

14

3) Describe students opportunities to apply science knowledge in the exploration of science-

related matters.

4) Describe what the teacher does to accommodate students learning needs. (CSDOE, 2001f)

The guiding questions and the elaborating items are critical because they communicate to teachers

precisely the kind of evidence to include in the portfolio and also the main features of the portfolio

performance rubric. As discussed below, this is the evidence scorers use to assess teachers overall

performance.

The Portfolio Contents

Although the portfolios required elements vary slightly across discipline, regardless of the

discipline, depending on the length of the unit, the teacher will generally write about 12-16 pages of

reflective commentaries on the teaching and learning that took place during the unit chosen for the

portfolio and 5-8 lesson logs. The balance of the portfolio includes copies of instructional materials,

examples of student work for two students, and two videotaped segments of teaching of about 20

minutes each. (CSDOE, 2001) The assessors are instructed to not read any written materials that

exceed the specified limits and to not view any video segments that exceed the time limit.

A portfolio handbook exists for each discipline. The handbook identifies the standard portfolio

items but provides specific guidance related to that discipline. A summary of the portfolio

requirements for three disciplines is provided in the table below.

What to do What to submit

Science teaching portfolio

Part A: Describe a unit of science inquiry learning

Select, adapt or develop an inquirylearning unit requiring 6-8 hours ofclassroom time.

Provide relevant information aboutstudents in class.

Class profile form

Describe expected student learningduring the unit.

Portfolio introduction (maximum 2 pages)

Teach the unit and record classroomevents and monitoring of students

Daily logs (maximum pages: 2/day)


16/45

15


learning in daily logs.

Collect a sample of completed studentwork each day.

Completed work of any one student for each day

Part B: Describe students science explorations

Videotape a lab-based inquiry activity Videotape a science, technology and

society inquiry activity

Select four video segments to illustratestudent learning through inquiry

2 copies of the 4 videotaped lesson segmentstotaling about 30 minutes of instruction

Analyze the quality of studentslearning in these two instructionalsettings

Videotape commentary (1-2 pages)

Part C: Evaluate students learning

Submit work done by two studentsduring the lab, STS and unit assessment,including your feedback.

Collection of work done by two students

Evaluate the learning progress of thesestudents

Evaluation criteria for submitted student work

Commentary evaluating students learning(maximum 3 pages)

Part D: Evaluate the quality of your teaching

Evaluate learning in the entire class Commentary reflecting on teaching and learning(maximum 3 pages)

Analyze the effectiveness of yourteaching, based on the learning ofstudents in your class

Suggest changes to improve futureteaching and student science learning

Unit overview form

English language arts teaching portfolio

Describe an opportunity for student response to literature

Provide relevant information aboutstudents

Portfolio class profile

Describe students expected learning Introduction to portfolio: statement of expectations(maximum 2 page)

Select a piece of literature Rationale for literature choice (maximum 2 pages)

Keep a daily log reflecting 6-8instructional hours of classroominstruction

Daily logs

Describe students response to literature

Videotape students discussion ofliterature

Videotape of literary discourse (20 minutes)

Reflect on the quality and effect of thediscussion

Literature videotape commentary (maximum 2pages)

Evaluate students learning

Collect work done by two students Copy of assignment of task

Describe the background of theassessment

Collection of two students work

Analyze the link between instruction Student assessment reflective commentary


17/45


18/45

17


students.

Part D: Analysis of learning and teaching

Analyze and describe your strengths andwhat can be improved.

Reflection commentary (1-3 pages)

Source: Connecticut State Board of Education, Science, English Language Arts, and Music Portfolio

Handbooks

For example, the science handbook provides guidance and instructions that are tailored to

teaching science. The science portfolio unit is to cover a small learning unit of 6-8 hours total that is

focused on student learning of only a few science concepts at a time. The 6-8 hour period is expected

to cover 8-10 days of 45 minutes or 5 days of 90 minute periods. The teacher is instructed to videotape

two different science inquiry activities, which may require several days of taping if the activity spans

several lessons. One activity must cover a class activity . . . engaged in examination of ideas related to

either historical, technological, or social aspects of the units main concepts. The other segment must

include a lab inquiry activity in which the teacher and students are engaged in framing questions

suitable for research and attempting to seek answers through quantitative and/or qualitative methods of

data collection and interpretation. The video instructions then specify how the video material should

be allocated into four segments: 10 continuous (unedited) minutes of Science, Technology, Society

inquiry activity, 5 continuous minutes of a pre-lab activity, 5 continuous minutes of a lab activity, and

10 continuous minutes of a post-lab activity. (CSDOE, 2001f)

Similarly, the music handbook states that in selecting the class that will be used for the

portfolio tasks, the teacher should choose a class for which the teacher can plan and implement 4-6

consecutive lessons during the portfolio tasks. The content of the lessons included must reflect the

Three Artistic Processes and the emphasis should be on music making that can be seen in both the

lesson plan and the video. Each of the lessons that are part of the portfolio tasks must be videotapes,

and then two 15-25 minute segments should be selected that focus on an appropriate balance of the


19/45

18

Three Artistic Processes, with each segment focusing on the instructional processes and interactions of

the class. (CSDOE, 2001e)

Thus, although both the music and science portfolios require videotape of classroom activities,

the content of what should be on the tape, and what its intended to show, is specific to each discipline.

In the same manner, the specific portfolio tasks and items for each discipline are similar in nature but

tailored to the discipline. To illustrate this, the portfolio items for three areas, science, English

language arts, and visual arts, and the portfolio section for the items are listed below, along with what

the teacher is to do for each section:

Portfolio Scoring

The portfolio as submitted for scoring is a relatively compact set of materials. Because the

items to be included in the portfolio are clearly specified, along with limits on the length of the written

items, the portfolios are of roughly equal size and composition. Precise directions for assembling and

finalizing the portfolio are provided in the handbook, along with a detailed checklist to help teachers

determine that the necessary components are included and are in the correct format. For example, the

portfolio must be printed in black ink on standard 8.5 x 11 paper, using Times New Roman or Arial

font no smaller than 12 point. Certain forms are required and must be included in the accordion folder

in which the portfolio and videotape are placed. Failure to follow the portfolio directions or to include

the appropriate forms or portfolio items could potentially result in invalidation of the entire portfolio or

receiving a conditional rating, although the errors or omissions would need to be significant enough

to result in too little or inappropriate data upon which to make a valid judgment. As noted previously,

assessors are not allowed to read written materials or view videotape that exceed the specified limits,

so there is no incentive to the teachers to include additional or extraneous materials.


20/45

19

The portfolio scoring/evaluation process is the same for every discipline. Portfolio scorers

receive 50 or more hours of training provided by the state and are not allowed to participate in formal

scoring until they have met a proficiency standard. Certain eligibility criteria must be met to participate

in portfolio scoring training; candidates must be teachers, administrators, higher education faculty, or

retired educators; hold certification and expertise (a minimum of four years of teaching experience) in

the subject area selected for scoring; be nominated by a professional organization, school district or

other colleagues; and apply to and be selected by the state department of education. Portfolio scorers

typically begin training in the spring of the year in which they will be serving as scorers, and receive

ongoing review and practice during the summer scoring session.

During the pilot-testing and development phase, portfolios were scored by two scorers who

conferred during the scoring process. Over time, the scorer training and note-taking have become more

structured and reliable, so now each scorer scores independently, with all portfolios backread by a

trainer or table leader to verify that the evidence supports the rating. If a portfolio receives a score of

1 or a borderline or low 2, it is returned to the scoring pool and is rescored by one or more

additional scorers. A portfolio that ultimately receives a final score of 1 will have been

independently scored by at least three scorers, as well as a confirmation by the chief readers. The state

reports that it typically takes an experienced scorer 4-5 hours to score a portfolio.

The portfolio scorers follow standardized procedures that ensure the necessary information is

gathered from each portfolio and organized in a manner that allows a valid overall portfolio

performance score to be determined. The scorer reviews the portfolio documentation relating to the

learning unit chosen as the focus of the portfolio; including determining that required forms and

releases are provided. The documentation includes lesson logs, videotaped segments of the lessons

featured in the portfolio, samples of student work and evaluation of the student work, and


21/45

20

commentaries (reflections) on the lessons and unit taught. As the scorer reviews each piece of the

portfolio, s/he uses structured note-taking forms to take detailed notes recording evidence that will be

used to in scoring the portfolio.

Once the scorer has gone through the entire portfolio and completed the evidence-gathering

(note-taking), the guiding questions are used as the basis of analyzing and identifying patterns of

performance. The guiding questions relate to the foundational teaching skills and competencies and the

discipline-specific teaching standards. By organizing the evidence in this manner, the scorer has an

efficient and systematic way to begin analyzing the information.

The assessor then identifies patterns of evidence that are then matched to the detailed portfolio

performance rubrics to create a feedback report. Next, the quality of the performance patterns is

evaluated against the training benchmarks and a scoring decision guide to produce a final score. The

assessor also completes an individual portfolio score report that is sent in September to the teacher who

prepared the portfolio. The individual portfolio score report summarizes the performance on the

portfolio according to the portfolio performance rubrics. By providing this more specific information

in addition to the overall portfolio score, the beginning teacher can better see areas of relative strength

and weakness. Thus, although the portfolio score can be viewed as a summative score, the individual

score report provides a formative component that the teacher can use for professional development

decisions and ongoing growth. The Connecticut Department of Education is in the process of writing a

technical report on the portfolio assessment process, which will make available more detailed

information about the scoring process.

Each teacher whose portfolios receive an overall portfolio performance score of conditional

(1) is offered a personal conference with an assessor who will provide individualized feedback to the

teacher about the portfolio. This is a good example of the states commitment to use the BEST


22/45

21

program to support and develop quality new teachers and not simply as a way to weed out those who

arent fully qualified by the second year of teaching. As noted previously, teachers whose portfolios

receive a conditional score have the option of preparing a new portfolio during the third year. For those

teachers who perhaps need a bit more time and growth to reach the beginning teacher standards, the

third year may provide an important extra opportunity to demonstrate the level of performance

required to stay in the teaching profession in Connecticut. This is not only important to the individual

teachers, but to the state as a whole, which by that time has invested considerable time and effort in the

individual throughout the teacher preparation program and first two years of teaching.

Although there is no single attribute of a portfolio that would cause it to not meet standards,

weaker portfolios may be characterized by such things as teachers making reflective statements that are

too general, significant discrepancy between the lesson plan and the videotapes. For example, when

reviewing the reflection pieces, the assessors are looking for specific adjustments that a teacher would

make in a specific area and why, and not simply a general statement that a teacher would have done

something differently. A pattern of inconsistencies or weaknesses in the content, inability to reflect on

practice, and failure to accommodate student needs could result in a decision to not pass a teacher,

depending on the overall degree of the problem. The performance benchmarks and decision guide are

used to help guide the scorer in a decision to barely pass or barely fail a teacher; as noted

previously, that decision is then independently confirmed by multiple scorers and a chief reader.

There also are circumstances or situations for which the assessor files a portfolio incident

report. The report is reviewed by the BEST Review Committee, who evaluates whether there is

sufficient evidence to warrant invalidation of the portfolio submission. (2001, CSBOE) Some

examples of situations that could result in a portfolio incident report are not following the portfolio

handbook directions, the videotaped lessons cant be heard or viewed, work samples or other materials


23/45

22

are illegible, or the safety or well-being of students appears to have been jeopardized. The

consequences of portfolio invalidation vary based on the portfolio finding. If the portfolio is deemed

not scorable, a Year 2 teacher must resubmit a portfolio during the third year of teaching, and a Year 3

teacher is ineligible for continued certification. If there is evidence of unethical practice or that the well

being of students has been jeopardized, the superintendent of the district will be notified. Year 2

teachers will be eligible to resubmit a portfolio in the third year only if the superintendent makes a

request to the state Department of Education, and Year 3 teachers are ineligible for continued

certification. If the portfolio is scorable but there are minor safety violations, the Department of

Education reserves the right to share the contents of the portfolio incident report and the portfolio with

the school district.

Performance Levels

Unlike some programs or assessments that provide only a pass/fail determination, the BEST

portfolio scoring has four levels of performance, although only a rating of 2 or above is required to

receive the provisional teaching license. Some districts have opted to use the scoring information as a

quality indicator and offer permanent contracts only to those beginning teachers who achieved a

certain score, e.g., a 3 or above, on the portfolio. (Because each teachers score is reported to the

individuals employing district, this information is available to the school although use of the portfolio

score in that manner is not one of the portfolios stated purposes.) State officials observed that the

districts that use the portfolio score as a factor in deciding which new teachers to retain tend to be in

suburban, wealthier districts that are in a position to be more selective about which teachers they retain

because they are more attractive to candidates.

The rubrics used to provide feedback about each portfolio contain some content-specific

features; each discipline's rubrics are tailored to reflect the specific elements under the guiding


24/45

23

questions for that discipline, and to that extent reflect some discipline-specific characteristics. The

standards reflected in the rubric language are based on the foundational skills and characteristics

common to all teachers, along with discipline-specific elements. The portfolio tasks are designed to

elicit evidence from multiple sources that the teacher can implement both the foundational and content-

specific teaching standards as part of daily planning and instruction, evaluation of student learning and

reflection on the quality of teaching. As a consequence, the portfolio tasks reflect the unique

characteristics of the discipline.

Portfolio benchmarks are used to train scorers to understand and be able to identify the four

levels of performance. The rubrics contain some specific features that relate to the respective content

area, but the primary method by which the accuracy and quality of content-specific aspects are

assessed in the portfolio is through the choice of a content-specialist scorer. Content-specific scorers

are ensured through several means. Scorers must have four years of recent teaching experience in a

specific content area, so they have recent familiarity with and knowledge of the content area.

Moreover, because the state requires that fully licensed teachers have passed Praxis II content-specific

exams and have a major in their field, currently licensed teachers should have a strong academic

background in the content area. Finally, the state also invites former BEST Program graduates who

have received 3s and 4s on their own portfolios to be scorers (they must still meet the number of

years of teaching requirement).

As noted previously, the discipline-specific rubrics are organized around the guiding questions.

For each guiding question, four levels of performance are described. Although each discipline has a

unique set of rubrics, there are some commonalities across the disciplines. Typically, the conditional

(1) level describes teaching at a very basic level, characterized by superficial classroom management


25/45

24

and instructional techniques. The general structure of the decision guide for a conditional teachers

performance describe five broad characteristics:

The teacher selects/designs a sequence of learning activities that have a limited potential to

advance the learning of students in class;

The teacher focuses instruction on coverage of the content and students are rarely engaged

in exploration and discussion of central concepts;

Monitoring and student assessment provide the teacher with limited evidence about student

learning;

Reflection on practice is vague and not connected to evidence of student learning and is not

followed by appropriate instructional adjustments, when needed; and

A pattern of content inaccuracies is evident.

The rubric language provides descriptive statements that expand on the types of things that would be

associated with these general characteristics and would be observed from the portfolio evidence. For

example, content-specific information provided by the teacher may not always be accurate and errors

made by students may not always be recognized. Student learning demonstrated is focused more on

basic skills, e.g., rote memorization of facts, than on more complex concepts or analysis. At each

progressive performance level, more complex concepts and actions are described, and more student-

directed and individualized instruction is evident. At the highest performance level, the performance

described typically is of a high level, with a strong emphasis on core concepts, analytical thinking,

student-directed learning, ongoing student assessment and feedback, and clear connections to student

learning standards.

Some examples from several of the rubrics illustrate the above general statements. The first

example is from the science rubric. One of the guiding questions for a science portfolio is to describe


26/45

25

student opportunities to apply science knowledge and develop science literacy. The rubric exemplars

for each of the four performance levels show what should be seen in the portfolio at each level:

1 = The unit included limited opportunities for students to learn the relevance of science to

their lives.

2 = The unit included some opportunities for students to learn the relevance of science to their

lives.

3 = The unit included varied opportunities for students to learn the relevance of science to their

lives.

4 = The unit included opportunities for students to explore the relevance of science to their

lives and to make informed decisions about science-related matters. (emphasis added)

This example shows how the frequency and complexity of an expected teaching activity, i.e., providing

opportunities for students to learn the relevance of science, are expected to be greater at higher teacher

performance levels. In addition, the highest level, the focus is more on the type of opportunity the

students are given (explore vs. learn) and the ability of the students to extend (use) the knowledge in a

decision-making application, rather than simply knowing about how science affects their lives. Thus,

this example shows a combination of two key rubric dimensions, frequency of a desired teaching

behavior or learning strategy, and complexity (higher order) of the knowledge and skill demonstrated

by the student as a result of the teaching activities.

An example from the English language arts rubric shows how the complexity of the student

learning is expected to be greater at higher teacher performance levels, as well as the focus on

individual students and student-directed learning. A guiding question for this portfolio states that the

portfolio will describe how the teacher uses a writing process with students including context,

purpose and conventions of written English. The descriptions of the four performance levels follow:


27/45

26

1 = Students follow steps for writing that emphasize mechanics, structure and conventions

of standard written English.

2 = Students use a prescribed writing process with an identified audience and/or purpose

and conventions of standard written English.

3 = Students are guided in using a process for writing with an identified audience, purpose

and conventions of standard written English.

4 = Students are supported in using a flexible process for writing that is related to an

identified audience, purpose, model and conventions of standard written English.

(emphasis added)

This example shows how at progressively higher performance levels, the complexity of the student

tasks increases and the role of the teacher changes from giving specific directions and rules to

guiding the individual student in a broader way.

Finally, an example from the mathematics rubrics shows how the content-specific elements in a

rubric focus more on the broader concepts in the student learning standards, as opposed to enumerating

specific concepts or skills. The latter approach would essentially require grade-level specific rubrics

because the specific math concepts and skills taught, e.g., in first grade, generally will differ both in

substance and form from those taught, say, in eighth grade. Presumably, the translation of the actual

content taught at a particular grade level would be included in the lessons that were the focus of the

portfolio and the teachers written rationale for selecting and teaching the unit would be related to

grade-level specific student learning goals. One guiding question for the mathematics portfolio states

that the portfolio will describe the focus of the learning tasks and how they provide students with

opportunities to develop mathematical understanding. The four performance levels are:


28/45

27

1 = The tasks are limited, primarily providing opportunities for students to memorize terms,

follow rules, and develop discrete skills.

2 = The tasks are somewhat varied to provide opportunities for students to develop procedural,

as well as some conceptual OR problem solving understanding.

3 = The tasks are varied to provide opportunities for students to develop procedural, as well as

conceptual OR problem solving understanding.

4 = The tasks are diverse, providing opportunities for students to develop procedural,

conceptual and problem solving understanding, as well as requiring students to apply their

mathematical knowledge.

As with the science example, this example shows how the student learning focus at higher levels is

expected to be on higher-order skills and knowledge rather than basic processes and operations, and

that students will use and apply the knowledge and skills in a broader sense. In addition, at higher

performance levels a teacher is expected to offer more and different opportunities for students to learn

the same information, thus reflecting both the need to accommodate different student learning styles

and to present complex information in a variety of ways so that all students have an opportunity to

learn it.

At present, the portfolio performance rubrics are not part of the published portfolio handbooks

that teachers receive to assist in portfolio preparation, however, they were disseminated to beginning

teachers, mentors, principals and other district personnel at the beginning of the school year. As noted

previously, the rubrics are closely related to the guiding questions for each portfolio area, so they

provide important information relating to what should be in the portfolio and what it should be

showing. State officials indicated that in future years, the rubrics might be included in the portfolio

handbook. Although some might argue that providing the rubrics could give teachers an edge in


29/45


30/45

29

external methods are used to validate the portfolio assessment and the process used to score the

portfolios.

Portfolio Cost Information

The department receives an annual appropriation of about $3.5 million for the BEST program,

of which about a third is spent on scoring portfolios, a third on administrative expenses (e.g., data

management, staffing, etc.), and a third on regional training, support and technical assistance to

beginning teachers, mentors and school districts. In 2001, the money spent on portfolio scoring

included training, scoring, scoring sites, table leaders, etc. There were about 300 scorers and about

2200 portfolios, for a direct cost of around $450/portfolio. Of this amount, scorers receive

$100/portfolio scored, and depending on the discipline, can score 1-2 portfolios a day.

The department estimates that under a previous observation system, similar to that used in

Praxis III or the Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996), about $.60 of every $1.00 was spent on

administration. In the BEST program (including both the support and portfolio programs), about $.70

of every $1.00 is actually related to professional development. Thus, the department sees the BEST

program as self-renewing because its essentially providing professional development for all the parties

involved in the process. For example, Connecticuts teachers need to be trained on the CCT standards;

teachers who are being trained to score receive excellent professional development around the

standards (both CCT and content-specific) through the scoring training. School administrators who

oversee the support and portfolio programs at the school level also need to know the general and

content-specific standards. Moreover, state law requires that districts establish their local evaluation

process in accordance with Connecticuts Guidelines for Teacher Evaluation and Professional

Development, which in turn require that districts incorporate the Common Core of Teaching standards

into the local evaluation process. This is an important link because it means that teachers are held to


31/45

30

the same or very similar standards for both local employment and state licensure determinations. The

standards can also be used to identify and frame professional development opportunities for teachers at

the local level.

6. Extending the CCT and Portfolio to Other Applications

As part of its effort to relate and integrate the CCT into the experienced teaching ranks beyond

the beginning teachers and to encourage local districts to extend its use to experienced teachers in

March 2002 the department released for review and comment a draft of a performance table and

career continuum based on the CCT and meant to serve as a resource for teacher evaluation and

professional development.. The performance table is intended primarily for the experienced (3+

years) teacher. The career continuum it lays out runs from approximately year three of the BEST

program (Novice), through and beyond tenure (Competent and Accomplished), potentially to National

Board Certification or to a teacher-leader position. (Appendix III) This draft was revised slightly and

a new draft made public in June 2002. The primary revision to the earlier draft was replacing Pre-

service with Novice and minor amendments to what competencies are associated with that level.

The department cautions that the table should not be used as a checklist of performance, and

that teachers are expected to have a profile of skills and competencies across (the) table that reflects

their strengths as measured by the CCT competencies as well as gain a perspective of the competency

areas in need of improvement. Therefore, a teacher of any number of years of experience, should

not be expected to master one competency level as reflected by one column, but rather will have

a range of strengths across this table. (emphasis in original) In addition, the table is based on

gradations of the CCT and therefore performance levels particularly across Competent, Accomplished,

and Master Teacher levels are all acceptable levels of performance for a Connecticut teacher, as long

as growth is demonstrated over time. (CDE, 2002) Suggested uses for the table are to help define


32/45

31

and understand acceptable levels of performance as defined by the CCT, to help locate a teachers

performance at a specific point in time using the CCT (to be used with data), and several other uses

mostly related to professional development needs identification, goal planning, and the like.

It is understandable why performing at Accomplished and Master levels is not identified as

a mandatory requirement, although with few exceptions, the expectations described at the

Accomplished level are directly derived from the Common Core of Teaching. The department is

stressing that the key point is whether an individual teachers performance is growing over time.

However, it is likely that higher performing teachers would be more effective teachers and produce

more learning (value-added) by students. Thus, by downplaying the value of demonstrating

performance at the higher levels and simply demonstrating growth instead, the department might be

undercutting the value of setting high standards for teachers. As an introduction to the concept of

differentiating individual teacher performance, the current strategy may be useful, but in the long term,

more emphasis should be placed on encouraging continued growth to higher performance levels.

7. Conclusion

Connecticuts BEST program is an ambitious effort to link and integrate at the state level

student and teacher standards across virtually all phases of teacher training and licensure. Unlike some

states programs that establish teaching standards and then only loosely and in a decentralized manner

link them to teachers performance, Connecticuts strategy requires that new teachers meet the

beginning teacher standards before entering the ranks of professional teachers. It pairs this

professional entrance requirement with involvement of current teachers and administrators in the

support and portfolio processes. This two-pronged approach should help develop a core group of both

new and experienced teachers and administrators who are familiar with and have internalized the

states teaching standards.


33/45


34/45

33

Another challenge the state is addressing is getting local districts to more directly relate the

CCT and the portfolio concept to teacher evaluation. A key to this effort is to get more local districts to

use the CCT and the portfolio performance concept for experienced teacher evaluation. The states

recent release of the draft performance table is one effort to make this connection easier for local

districts.

In the interim, Connecticuts program is the only performance-based teacher licensure program

that directly addresses content-specific teaching. Even though it is still developing content-specific

standards and portfolio requirements for certain disciplines, the work it has completed so far clearly is

beyond what any other state has done in this area. Thus, it can serve as a model for both states and

districts that are looking for ways to focus on specific teaching practices and to develop content-

specific standards.


35/45

34

References

Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Program and Teacher Evaluation (2002). CCTPerformance Table: A Career Continuum.Hartford: author. (May 17 draft)

Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Program and Teacher Evaluation (2001a).AGuide to the BEST Program for Beginning Teachers.Hartford: author.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2001b).A Guide to Educator Assessments in Connecticut.Hartford: author.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2001c).Handbook for the Development of a TeachingPortfolio: English Language Arts 2001-2002.Hartford: author.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2001d).Handbook for the Development of a TeachingPortfolio: Mathematics 2001-2002.Hartford: author.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2001e).Handbook for the Development of a TeachingPortfolio: Music 2001-2002.Hartford: Connecticut State Department of Education.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2001f).Handbook for the Development of a TeachingPortfolio: Science 2001-2002.Hartford: author.

Danielson, Charlotte (1996).Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kelley, Carolyn and Steven Kimball, Steve (2001). Financial Incentives for National BoardCertification.Educational Policy, 15(4), 547-573.

Lomask, Michael (2002).A Framework for the BEST Portfolio Scoring Process. Hartford: ConnecticutState Department of Education.

Connecticut State Board of Education (1999). Connecticuts Common Core of Teaching.Hartford:author.

Wilson, Suzanne W., Linda Darling-Hammond, and Barnett Berry (2001). A Case of SuccessfulTeaching Policy: Connecticuts Long-Term Efforts to Improve Teaching and Learning.Seattle:University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.


36/45

35

Appendix I

PortfolioPerformance Standards and Score Descriptions For Teachers of Elementary, English Language Arts,Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, Science, Social Studies, Special Education & Visual Arts1

On June 2, 2000, the State Board of Education established standards for evaluation of the BEST teachingportfolios. The evaluation of the portfolio is based on (1) the Foundational Skills and Competencies of

Connecticuts Common Core of Teaching (see Handbook p. 8) and (2) the Discipline-Based ProfessionalTeaching Standards (see Handbook p. 9).

The following performance standards have been established for teachers certified to teach elementary education,English language arts, mathematics, music, physical education, science, social studies, special education andvisual arts2:

PORTFOLIO SCORE PERFORMANCE

DESCRIPTION

RESULT

4 Advanced performance in meetingthe standards.

3 Proficient performance in meeting

the standards.2 Competent performance in meeting

the standards.

Eligibility for provisional educatorcertificate provided all other BEST

Program requirements are met.

1 Conditional performance inmeeting the standards.

Year 2:Eligbility for a third yearin the BEST Program, additionalmentoring and re-submission of ateaching portfolioYear 3: Ineligibility for continuedcertification.

Not scorable* Incomplete or inadequate portfoliodocumentation which interfereswith the accurate or fair scoring of

the portfolio.

Year 2: Eligibility for third year inthe BEST Program andresubmission of a teaching

portfolioYear 3: Ineligibility for continuedcertification.

0* Evidence of conduct in violation ofthe Code of ProfessionalResponsibility for Teachers(Section 145d-400a of theCertification Regulations)

Year 2:Eligibility for a third yearin the BEST Program only ifrequested in writing by thesuperintendent of schools and upona finding of good cause by theCommissioner of Education.Year 3: Ineligibility for continuedcertification.

*For elaboration, see Handbook, p. 13 (Invalidation of Portfolio Submissions).

1Teachers of English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies who hold the elementary or middleschool generalist certificate (#006) are required to meet the Portfolio CompletionStandard (see Handbook p. 12)2CSDE reserves the right to implement the CompletionStandard instead of thePerformancestandard for certaincategories of beginning teachers.

Source:Handbook for the Development of a Teaching Portfolio, 2001-2002,Connecticut State Department ofEducation, Science, p. 11.


37/45

36

Appendix IIThe Portfolio CompletionStandards For Teachers of World Languages and

Teachers of English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies With Elementary or Middle School(006) Certification

In certain situations, beginning teachers are required to meet the portfolio completion standard instead of the

performance standard previously described. Examples of these situations include: the pilot testing of aportfolio that has not yet been validated for teachers in a particular teaching setting, or when performancestandards have not yet been finalized. For the 2001-2002 school year, this includes beginning teachers of worldlanguages as well as beginning teachers of English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies withelementary or 4-8 middle school (006) certification. The completionstandard is defined below:

The completion standard has four components: comprehensiveness, adequacy, timeliness of submission, andprofessional responsibility, all of which must be met.

Completion Standard Defined

1) Comprehensiveness: All components of the teaching portfolio are present: lesson logs, videotape(s),

student work, commentaries (as outlined in portfolio handbook guidelines);

2) Adequacy:The contents of the portfolio reflect that the beginning teacher has followed the portfoliohandbook directions with regard to the period of time teaching is documented, the type of lesson andduration of lesson segments recorded on videotape, the nature and quantity of student work, and thecontent of the lesson commentaries (i.e., the teachers narrative is consistent with the questions asked);and

3) Timeliness of submission: The portfolio must be received by the specified deadline. Exceptions to thisdeadline must be requested by writing to the BEST project leader for your subject area, and will only begranted upon finding of good cause.

4) Conduct in accordance with the Code of Professional Responsibility for Professional Educators:Theteaching documented in the portfolio must reflect professional and ethical conduct.

Consequences for failure to meet the Completion Standard at the end of Year 2:

The beginning teacher will be required to participate for an additional year in the BEST Program and to re-submit a portfolio during year three. A copy of the letter informing the beginning teacher that she or he has notmet the completion standard will be sent to the BEST Program district facilitator and superintendent.

Consequences for failure to meet the Completion Standard by the end of Year 3:

The beginning teacher will not have fulfilled the requirements of the BEST Program and will not be eligible forcontinued teaching certification. In such cases, the candidate will be eligible for reissuance of the InitialEducator Certificate only after completion of a state-approved, planned program of intervening study and

experience during the course of one school year.

Source:Handbook for the Development of a Teaching Portfolio, 2001-2002,Connecticut State Department ofEducation, Science, p. 12


38/45

37

Apppendix III: Common Core of Teaching Table: A Performance ContinuumCONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Bureau of Evaluation and Educator Standards

How to read this table:

This document is meant to serve as a resource for teacher evaluation and professional development. As a performance table, it aims at providing anunderstanding of a teacher's performance continuum, based on the competencies and expectations outlined in the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching(CCT). The performance continuum runs from a teacher's early or Novice years (post student-teaching through the first two years as a Connecticut teacher),through and beyond tenure - Competent and Accomplished, to National Board Certification or to a teacher-leader position -Master. Teachers are expected tohave a profile of skills and competencies across this table that reflects their strengths as measured by the CCT competencies as well as gain a perspective ofthe competency areas in need of improvement. Therefore, a teacher of any number of years of experience should not be expected to master one competencylevel as reflected by one column, but rather will have a range of st rengths across this table.

How to use this table:There are many ways this document may be used at the school level for the purposes of teacher evaluation and professional development. These include:

As a professional development tool for administrators and teachers to better understand the CCT.

To help define and understand acceptable levels of performance as defined by the CCT.

To help locate a teacher's performance at a specific point in time, using the CCT. (to be used with data)

To help develop annual or multi-year goals and objectives focused on specific areas of the CCT.

As a tool for administrators to conference with teachers around selected areas. (to be used with data)

As a tool for teachers to self-assess their professional progress over their career.

To individualize feedback, goal-setting, and professional development, replacing a one-size-fits-all culture of professional growth.Regardless of which approach you take to this document, it is important to consider what data sources or evidence are needed to reinforce your process ofevaluation. This requires asking and defining, "What does this indicator look like in practice?"

How not to use this table:The purpose of this table is to provide a view of the continuum of a teacher's growth over time through the lens of the CCT, and to serve as one possible meansof conversation about a teacher's growth. Therefore, this table should not be used merely as a checklist of performance. Additionally, teachers should not beexpected to demonstrate performance as reflected in one entire column of the table, but rather to have a range of demonstrated competency levels across thistable. Remember, the table is designed based on gradations of the CCT and therefore performance levels particularly across Competent, Accomplished, andMaster Teacher levels are all acceptable levels of performance for a Connecticut teacher, as long as growth is demonstrated over time.

Performance Columns:Novice

Reflects the minimum skills prospective teachers who have completed their student teaching through a Connecticut teacher preparation programshould exhibit upon entering the profession, up through the first two years in the classroom. A beginning teacher in years one and two will bedeveloping from a student-teacher who has knowledge about skills and competencies with limited experience, to teachers who on a daily basisdemonstrate application of those skills and competencies. The novice teachers will experience significant learning, growth, and development fromthe student-teaching years up through the completion of their second year of teaching. Experienced teachers may use these indicators to reflectupon their skills development, and on the strategies, experiences and professional development that was most affective in their performance growth.

Competent

Reflects a performance level comparable to a score of high two/low three on the BEST portfolio in the areas of planning, instructing, assessing,adjusting, and reflecting on practice. Beginning teachers who demonstrate a range of performance competencies within and beyond the Competentlevel, might be identified as potential peer mentors for novice teachers in years one and two, or as candidates for Professional Growth opportunitieswithin the teacher evaluation process. Those areas, in which a teacher demonstrates performance below the Competentlevel, are the areas in whichhe/she needs further growth and professional development.

Accomplished

Reflects the essential skills and competencies, as outlined in the CCT, of all tenured teachers in the State of Connecticut. This column directlyquotes or paraphrases CCT language. Those areas in which a teacher demonstrates performance at the level ofAccomplishedor Master Teacherare areas of particular strength.

Master Teacher

Reflects leadership skills that go beyond the essential skills and competencies defined in the CCT. Those areas, in which the teacher meetsAccomplished-level performance, are the areas in which the teacher may take on teacher-leader roles such as mentor, peer coach,curriculum/committee chair, professional development presenter, etc. This column draws some of its language from the Five Core PropositionStatementsof the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, while using the CCT as its framework.


39/45

38

CCT I: The Teacher Has Knowledge Of Students, Content and Pedagogy:

1. Teachers understand how students learn and develop.

2. Teachers understand how students differ in their approaches to learning.

3. Teachers are proficient in reading, writing and mathematics.

4. Teachers understand the central concepts and skills, tools of inquiry and structures of the discipline(s) they teach.

5. Teachers know how to design and deliver instruction.

6. Teachers recognize the need to vary their instructional methods.

Students

Novice Competent Accomplished Master Teacher

Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacherdemonstrates knowledge of concepts,principles, theories and research related tothe normal progression and variation instudents' physical, emotional and cognitivedevelopment.

Teacher is knowledgeable about the majorconcepts, principles, theories and researchrelated to the normal progression andvariations in students' physical, emotionaland cognitive development and knows howto motivate students.

Teacher is knowledgeable about the majorconcepts, principles, theories and researchrelated to the normal progression andvariations in students' physical, emotionaland cognitive development to constructlearning opportunities that support students'development, acquisition of knowledge and[conceptual understanding]. (CCT I 1a)

Teacher has in-depth knowledge aboutchild/adolescent cognitive development,emotional and physical developmenttheories and how to effectively constructchallenging student learning opportunities topromote conceptual understanding.

Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacherexhibits knowledge of several commonlearning exceptionalities includingunderstanding of appropriate techniques tomodify instruction to support studentsexhibiting these exceptionalities, andgenerally knows how to design lessons toaccommodate students with exceptionalities.

Teacher is knowledgeable about learningexceptionalities, including learningdifferences, visual and perceptualdifferences, socio-emotional differences,special physical or mental challenges, andgifted and talented exceptionalities, andgenerally knows how to design lessons toaccommodate students with exceptionalities.

Teacher is knowledgeable about learningexceptionalities, including learningdifferences, visual and perceptualdifferences, socio-emotional differences,special physical or mental challenges, andgifted and talented exceptionalities, [andknows how to design lessons to meet thespecific needs of students], as well as knowshow to seek sources of support within theschool. (CCT I 1b)

Teacher has in-depth knowledge about howto organize instructional designs andmaterials to address learningexceptionalities in the areas of learningdifferences, visual and perceptualdifferences, socio-emotional differences,special physical or mental challenges, andgifted and talented exceptionalities. Teacheris knowledgeable about strategies foridentifying sources of support within theschool and community to meet the specificneeds of students.

Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacher isaware of and receptive to individual studentdifferences commonly found in classrooms,such as language, culture, heritage, familyand community values, as well as theirimpact on instructional design decisions, anduse of materials and activities.

Teacher is aware of how student learning isinfluenced by language, culture, heritage,family and community values andincorporates students' experiences andcommunity resources into instruction.

Teacher is aware of how student learning isinfluenced by language, culture, heritage,family and community values and[frequently] incorporates students'experiences and community resources intoinstruction. (CCT I 2a)

Teacher values the teaching and learningopportunities created by student's language,culture, heritage, family and communityvalues and continually explores and utilizesmodels and approaches for integrating thisresource.

Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacherexhibits knowledge of and a positive attitudetoward differences in language developmentand is resourceful about strategies tosupport the learning of students whose first

language is not English.

Teacher is knowledgeable about languagedevelopment and attempts teachingstrategies to support the learning of studentswhose first language is not English.

Teacher is knowledgeable about languagedevelopment, including the process ofsecond-language acquisition, and employsstrategies to support the learning of studentswhose first language is not English. (CCT I

2c)

Teacher effectively utilizes languagedevelopment skills to create a safe,supportive and intellectually challenginglearning program for students whose firstlanguage is not English.

Content


Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacher islearning how to design instruction tointegrate national, state and local contentstandards into instructional planning.

Teacher designs instruction to integratenational, state and local content standardsinto instructional planning.

Teacher knows and utilizes national andstate [and local] standards within theirdiscipline. (CCT I 4c)

Teacher knows and utilizes national andstate standards within their discipline, andserves on school/district assessment/curriculum committee that analyzes datacollected to measure or develop localteaching/learning standards.

Student-teacher/ Beginning Teacher canidentify specific instructional strategies andtechnological resources that supportdiscipline-based learning.

Teacher is engaged in professionaldevelopment to continue to enhance his/herskills and experiments with integratingknowledge inherent in literacy, numeracyand inquiry to enable his/her students tosolve problems.

Teacher [keeps] abreast of new ideas andunderstandings within his/her discipline,including the impact of technology andinformation sources on the nature ofteaching, communications and thedevelopment of knowledge. (CCT I 4d)

Teacher is continuously involved inprofessional development in his/herdiscipline, technology, cross-disciplinaryconnections, and pedagogy, and keepsabreast of contemporary/futuristic ideas andunderstandings of his/her discipline and

shares this knowledge with his/her peers.

Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacherexhibits an understanding of the skills andknowledge inherent in his/her discipline thatcan be used to encourage and enablehis/her students to solve problems.

Teacher participates in personal andstructured professional developmentactivities within the school/district to developdiscipline-specific understandings as appliedto current teaching needs.

Teacher uses skills and knowledge inherentin literacy, numeracy and inquiry to enablehis/her students to represent physicalevents, work with data, reason,communicate mathematically, and makeconnections within his/her respective contentarea in order to solve problems. (CCT I 4f)

Teacher models and teaches peers how touse skills and knowledge inherent in literacy,numeracy and inquiry to enable his/herstudents to represent physical events, workwith data, reason, communicatemathematically, and make connectionswithin and across content areas in order tosolve problems.


40/45

39

Pedagogy


Student-Teacher/ Beginning Teacher isknowledgeable about the CCL and theCurricular Frameworks within his/her contentarea.

Teacher demonstrates a basicunderstanding of the connections betweenspecific content knowledge, content-relatedteaching practices, and State standards.

Teacher [makes connections betweenspecific content knowledge and the greaterK-12 curriculum, aligning classroomobjectives and activities to the CCL and K-12Frameworks]. (CCT I 5a)

Teacher demonstrates an extensiveknowledge of content and content-relatedteaching practices. Teacher exhibitsevidence of a continued search for improvedpractice and makes seamless connectionswithin and beyond the specific content area.

CCT II: The Teacher Applies His/Her Knowledge By Planning, Instructing, Assessing and Adjusting

1. Teachers plan instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the curriculum and the community.

2. Teachers create a structure for learning by selecting and/or creating significant learning tasks that make subject matter meaningful to students.

3. Teachers establish and maintain appropriate standards of behavior and create a positive learning environment that shows a deep commitment tostudents and their success.

4. Teachers create instructional opportunities to support students' academic, social and personal development.

5. Teachers use effective verbal, nonverbal and media communications techniques which foster individual and collective inquiry.

6. Teachers employ a variety o

kellor_performance-based licensure in connecticut.pdf

Documents