The InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: Defining What Effective Teaching Looks Like Today National Conference on Student Assessment June 19, 2011
Dec 29, 2015
The InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: Defining What Effective
Teaching Looks Like Today
National Conference on Student AssessmentJune 19, 2011
Presenters
Kathleen Paliokas Director, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC)
Carlene Kirkpatrick Instructional Coach, DeKalb County Schools, Georgia National Board Certified Teacher (EA Mathematics) Served on the InTASC Model Core Standards Update
Committee
InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards Update Process
Original standards released in 1992
Revision conducted by expert panel that included: Practicing teachers Higher education faculty who prepare educators State education agency staff
Funding contributed by Educational Testing Service (ETS), Evaluation Systems of Pearson, National Education Association (NEA)
A companion policy document was released with the standards
Key Changes from the 1992 Standards
Developmental Continuum: Standards no longer just for beginning teachers but ALL teachers. INTASC becomes InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and
Support)
A Focus on 21st Century Knowledge and Skills: Problem solving, curiosity, creativity, innovation, communication, interpersonal skills, the ability to synthesize across disciplines, global literacy, ethics, and technological expertise.
Personalized Learning for Diverse Learners: Teachers need knowledge and skills to customize learning for learners with a range of individual differences.
Key Changes to Standards (continued)
Increased Emphasis on Assessment Literacy: Teachers need to have greater knowledge and skill around how to develop a range of assessments and how to use assessment data to improve instruction and support learner success.
A Collaborative Professional Culture: Teaching is not a private act.
New Leadership Roles for Teachers and Administrators:A shift in leadership from teachers working autonomously in their classrooms to administrators, teachers, and others sharing leadership roles and responsibilities for student learning.
The Learner and LearningStandard #1: Learner Development Standard #2: Learning Differences Standard #3: Learning Environments ContentStandard #4: Content Knowledge Standard #5: Application of Content
Groupings of Standards
Groupings of Standards
Instructional PracticeStandard #6: Assessment Standard #7: Planning for Instruction Standard #8: Instructional Strategies Professional ResponsibilityStandard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration
Theme Knowledge Disposition Performance
*Collaboration 3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 5(p), 10(f), 1(k), 3(k), 3(l), 3(nm), 1(c), 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 5(f), 6(b),
10(h) 5(v), 6(m), 7(l), 8(s), 9(l), 7(a), 8(b), 8(c), 9(a-c), 9(e), 10(a),
10(k), 10(l) 10(b), 10(c), 10(d)
*Communication 3(i), 3(j), 5(o), 6(j), 8(o) 3(o), 3(n), 6(o), 8(u) 3(b), 3(e), 5(e), 5(f), 6(c), 8(h),
8(i), 8(j), 10(e)
*Creativity/innovation 5(k), 5(q), 8(l), 8(o) 3(m), 5(v) 5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 6(g), 8(k), 9(f)
*Critical thinking, problem solving
4(h), 5(j), 5(n), 6(k), 8(l), 8(n)
4(n), 5(s), 8(r) 4(b), 4(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 5(g),
5(h), 6(d), 8(f), 8(g), 8(k), 9(b)
Cultural competence
1(g), 2(i), 2(l), 2(m), 3(i), 4(k), 5(r), 7(f), 8(m)
3(n), 4(m), 5(v), 5(w), 7(f), 8(t),
2(f), 3(e), 5(h), 9(c)
Key Cross-Cutting Themes in Updated InTASC Standards
InTASC Teaching Standards Linked to Common Core Students Standards
InTASC Teaching Standards
Standard 5:CCSS Mathematics
Dissemination and Public Comment Feedback
Broad outreach – press release, e-mail blasts, online survey, focus groups, blogs, twitter, briefing of executive directors of national associations
Public comment ended early November 2010
Raw numbers
104 online surveys completed (+400 partials) – 36 states
325 people participated in 23 focus groups
Numerous ad hoc email messages and formal letters
Synthesis and analysis completed and changes incorporated
Public Comment Feedback
Critical General Comments•Standards too broad to be useful•Redundant and wordy, too many indicators•Need to give more weight to accountability and outcomes•This is status quo – would have been cutting edge a decade ago•Teacher leadership needs to be more explicit – it is more than collaboration•Lack of specific reference to students with disabilities is a weakness
Changes to Public Comment Draft
Strengthened teacher leadership expectations
• #10 renamed to Leadership and Collaboration
Strengthened ongoing learning of teachers
• #9 renamed to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Strengthened assessment literacy further
• Called out formative and summative
• Added learner capacity to evaluate his/her own progress
Changes to Public Comment Draft
Added explicit language tied to Common Core Learning progressions, sequencing, stronger
accountability language for outcomes
Added teacher will assure “mastery of content” to stem of #4, added “performance against standards” in indicators of #4
Clarified accommodation and differentiation language
Added a glossary of key terms
Next Steps
Work with states to move the standards into policy and practice
Identify with states key tools and resources to be developed
Developmental continuum aligned to the standards
Model rubric and indicators aligned to the standards
Comprehensive website with video clips aligned to the standards
Meet with partners around the companion paper, Implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards for State Policy
Policy Implications
Taking the standards to the next level of grain size – what does that look like?
Developmental Continuum Assessment at key transition points
• End of Pre-service – TPAC as one example
• NBPTS – accomplished teaching
• What does tier 2 or professional license assessment look like?
Policy Implications
Reform in Preparation Program approval/accreditation as leverage
Clinical practice
Ongoing Professional Learning New collaborative culture and use of data
Teacher Evaluation Defining “effectiveness”
Student growth and multiple measures
State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE)
CCSSO is well situated to lead systemic approach Goal is implementation of standards-driven coherent systems of educator
effectiveness
Three areas of focus Standards for Learning, Teaching and Leading Professional Growth and Support for Teaching and Leading Evaluating Teaching and Leading
Incorporates InTASC and SCEL within a larger umbrella28 states have joined SCEE and named 6-member teamsSCEE provides states with a forum for sharing via
Monthly webinars Collaborative work site National summit Regional/topical meetings
SCEE Summit
1st SCEE National Summit on Educator Effectiveness was held April 28-30 in Washington DC
6 breakout strands– Preparation– Tiered licensure– Teacher evaluation– Leader evaluation– Professional development– Systems change
Note: The June 14 SCEE webinar will provide a summary of the breakout strand discussions (www.ccsso.org/scee)
SCEE Summit Feedback
Regarding each strand, states would like
To know what other states are doing
Models, tools, lessons learned
To know how to integrate “effectiveness” (e.g., student growth) into all aspects of the system
To know what the research tells us about the impact of different strategies
For More Information
Please go to: www.ccsso.org/intasc
•Free PDF of standards •Bound copies can be ordered from Amazon•Free PDF of State Policy Implications paper•Research base is available