Educators disagree about the value, validity, and reliability of the Pearson EdTPA, which is mandated in many states as the gateway to entering teaching.
Some states have lowered the passing score. Some are wondering whether to abandon it.
The debate occurs at a time when enrollments in teacher education programs have dropped by a third.
While many agree on the importance of high standards for new teachers, it’s by no means clear that the EdTPA encourages better teaching or merely rewards teachers who are good at the demands made by Pearson.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I supervise student teachers in NYS. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the edTPA requirement renders my students LESS prepared to teach than when it was not required. Their main focus and a large portion of their time must be devoted to its completion. This means they sometimes, out of necessity, neglect classes not being filmed and featured. They also do not have time to delve into as many methods as we previously studied. It needs to go!
Great question.
It’s really the same debate we have about students in our classrooms. Are outside standardized tests developed and scored by outside vendors a good measure of classroom learning? NO! So in what world should we think that outside “standardized” instruments developed and scored outside our teacher education programs be a good measure of a teacher candidates preparation. The closer evaluation is to the actual event the more insightful it will be. From all accounts, students are spending an inordinate amount of time on this one instrument to the detriment of other aspects of preparation. The fact that this instrument was based on the fact that teacher education programs are lousy and that private profit motivated entities can do it better just reeks. Work on any weaknesses of individual programs in-house and in-state under the guidance of seasoned educational professionals who know the needs of the system for which they are preparing teachers.
cx: would be a good measure
It’s by no means clear that the EdTPA encourages better teaching or merely rewards teachers who are good at the demands made by Pearson.”
But one thing is perfectly clear
The the EdTPA handsomely rewards the Brutish East Ed-nia Company (aka Pearson) to the tune of around $5.4 million every year (18k who take it times $300 per exam) (in addition to all the millions they get for PARCC tests)
How lucky we are that a foreign (has been) country decides for us whether our teachers are prepared.
”
Pearson Boardroom Banter”
We beat them with a test!
With not a bullet fired!
Completed is the quest
That King George once desired!
Has been, with the exception of guitar players.
I had some experience with EdTPA recently (though not taking it myself). In my view, the main quality required to pass it is the ability to BS fluently, convincingly and at considerable length. Is that really the main quality we want in a teacher? Also, I think there’s inherent cultural bias in that — some cultures are less geared toward encouraging and rewarding BSing.
“…the ability to BS fluently…” OR: how to fool the reformers themselves
A friend of mine who works I a sheet metal fabrication industry told me he worked with a guy who was an excellent tig welder. He described this process as delicate, adding that the ability to do it well guaranteed a person of getting a good, high-paying job. I do not know what this is or whether you have to take a test to be such a welder, but my friend gave this guy unqualified recommendation of the basis of working with him. Apparently one has to possess a very steady hand and a great understanding of metal to do this. Not a word was said about any test other than looking at the product.
Teaching is way more complex than any kind of welding, but the understanding of whether someone is good at is can only come with great experience with that person. Tests are pretty much worthless.
If Pearson judged our welders”
If Pearson judged our welders
The welds would never hold
Cuz they’d confuse with smelters
Who melt the ore for gold
Perfect, SomeDAM!!!! Just freaking perfect!!!
SDP: an insidious alchemy, to be sure
Very, very well observed, Roy!!!
The edPTA is currently required in 18 states. You can see a map of these states here, along with some other information at https://edtpa.aacte.org/state-policy
A recent article in Studies in Art Education captured some reflections of teacher educators in one state that required the edPTA test for certification in the visual arts. It was clear that a lot of time was spent on test prep at the expense of more professional discussions about a range of topics of vital importance to student teachers.
A competing test for elementary majors (generalists) is under development by the Education Testing Service. That test addresses “high leverage” teaching skills with two exemplars, leading a discussion of math concepts and leading a discussion of a reading assignment. The acronym for the ETS test is NOTE, which stands for National Observational Teaching Examination.
NOTE is being developed by ETS is collaboration with an R& D center called TeachingWorks hosted at the University of Michigan and Mursion, a firm that has markets the uses of avatar-based interactive simulations for military, corporate, health-care, and education clients (training, preparation, and assessment). As you might have guessed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is among the funders of TeachingWorks. http://www.teachingworks.org/about/our-funders
NOTE requires the prospective teacher to interact with five to six on-screen child avatars. The avatars are animated. They speak, move about, and are given a personality by paid off-screen adult actors who work from scripts. The adults wear biometric sensors rigged so the on-screen avatars can be made to smile, frown, raise a hand and interact with each other and the novice teacher.
The NOTE exam requires a candidate to teach a “virtual class” of five to six avatar students for six to seven minutes with evidence of ability to use “high leverage” skills, such as presenting content, leading a group discussion, interacting with each avatar, and addressing misbehavior.
This is the website for Mursion https://www.mursion.com/services/education/
Here is the wonderful post about this test from Mitch Robinson, who also has included some images that show a novice teacher interacting with a very large projection screen depicting the avatars http://www.eclectablog.com/2017/05/the-brave-new-world-of-teacher-evaluation.html
Here is a link to some research about the NOTE test if you are interested. https://www.academia.edu/37430820/Leading_a_Classroom_Discussion_Definition_Supporting_Evidence_and_Measurement_of_the_ETS_National_Observational_Teaching_Examination_NOTE_Assessment_Series
The ETS website is not now engaged in big-time marketing of this test, not yet. I’d guess that the offscreen actors working from a script are being replaced by some artificial intelligence programs. For some work on IA that bears on human thinking see this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5449483/DeepMind-AI-learning-understand-thoughts-others.html
I may qualify for one of those AI Robots for senior care soon.
An AI that can predict what another AI will “think” and do in a certain situation is not all that (or at all) impressive. If two AIs are programmed the same way, of course they are going to behave similarly. It would be surprising if they did not! (Although probably not that surprising given how sloppy some computer programmers are)
Now, if computer “scientists” [sic and sick](at MIT, at least, given their involvement with pedophile and sex trafficker Epstein) could develop an AI that could predict that for humans, THAT would be something.
But it won’t happen soon or perhaps ever because despite the basic underlying assumption of economic “scientists” [sic and sicker], humans do not behave rationally.
And the idea that the above ability of AI s to predict what other AIs “think” will lead to an understanding of human thought is just wishful thinking.
Thanks, as always, Laura, for the heads up on this. You so raise the caliber of the discussion (blog motto: “A site to discuss better education for all”).
Many years ago, in fifth grade, I had my first male teacher, Mr. Schimizzi. His typical shtick was to stand at the front of the class and lecture, to be the “sage on the stage.” This he did with elementary school students!!!
Most people would call this terrible pedagogy. His style certainly wouldn’t enable him to pass any contemporary rubrics-based evaluation of good teaching.
But he was one of the best teachers I ever had. He was so interesting, so engaging, so fascinating, so knowledgeable and entertaining and energetic, that he held us mesmerized. We couldn’t wait to learn the next thing from him. We all wanted to be him, to have a piece of what he had.
Years later, I had a math teacher in 9th grade. Sadly, I have forgotten her name, though her image and her ideas are with me yet today. She almost completely ignored the standard syllabus. Unlike most teachers, who will start at the beginning of the text and work kids through it page by page because the subject is cumulative, she used the textbook as an occasional resource. I suppose that she ended up covering the topics we were supposed to get in 9th-grade Algebra, but she did so in her own weird way. She had two obsessions. One was the intersection of math and logic–set theory and proof. Another was the intersection of Algebra and Geometry–representing geometric forms and operations on these using equations. She made the subject incredibly interesting, and she taught us a lot about how to think clearly. None of this would have worked had she not been, herself, an incredibly knowledgeable, capable mathematician.
Another of the best teachers I ever had.
So, a teacher who lectured to elementary school kids, a teacher who ignored the prescribed curriculum. Incredible teachers, both. Among the hundreds I’ve had, two of the best. But neither would pass any contemporary rubrics-based evaluation of good teaching.
Moral of these stories: THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO BE A GOOD TEACHER. Generalization of this principle: Specification and standardization limits the range of human response and thus innovation, autonomy, creation. Standardization rewards to banal, the mediocre, and drives out the exceptional.
Years ago, I was supervising a large group of editors. I found out about GANTT programs. You could use these to specify every part of a project, assign resources, set goals, track achievement of goals, identify bottlenecks, and keep very close tabs on your budget. So, I ordered a copy of Microsoft Project, learned the program, and started creating these incredibly detailed charts of the various projects I was overseeing. My superiors were VERY impressed, and my colleagues were VERY jealous. But I soon identified two problems. First, I was spending so much time updating the stupid charts that I wasn’t doing the rest of my job. I wasn’t mentoring, coaching, encouraging, serving as the final arbiter of quality, devoting time to innovation in product design. Second, my people were fudging their numbers, creating a garbage-in situation, and they were wasting a lot of their time not doing their work but, instead, preparing inputs to the program for me. I tossed the project planning software into the trash and went back to management by walking around.
Morals of this story: Autocratic, highly specified systems, imposed from the top, tend to ignore, not to take into account, key, essential, defining, varying, and CRITICAL human variables. They also tend to stifle innovation because they narrow the range of possible attention. And, they create an incentive to cheat, to game the system.
Pearson is poison. This beast should change its corporate motto to “Pearson, Not Persons.”
BTW, because of their decades of mismanagement, the Pearson people just unloaded their courseware offerings (textbooks in print and online) in a firesale to an equity firm. They did this so they could concentrate on their more lucrative test-them-til-they-bleed and depersonalized education software businesses. The evil Pearson Pacman bought the GRE, which previously allowed kids who hadn’t done well in school to get a high-school equivalency certificate and go on to trade school. Pearson Common Cored the test and made it a lot more difficult, so that kids had to take it many times, and many gave up. So, it stalled or eliminated the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands of kids. And, they made a lot of money because kids now have to take the test many times.
Pearson is the devil. Whenever possible, boycott its products.
When Pearson bought the GRE, they immediately upped the price by multiples.
Yes. So, the kids who did the worst in school–the ones who had to take the test and the ones, typically, from the poorest homes–had to pay much, much more to take the test, and they had to do this again and again. This disgusting scheme worked for Pearson, ofc. They made a lot of money. But it ruined the lives of kids.
Mon Cher Monet:
The Pearson Academy regrets to inform you that you have not passed its Certification Examination for Painters, Fine Arts Class. You will find, enclosed, a copy of the average scores by our examiners on the Rubric for Fine Art Painting Certification. In particular, please note that your work does not meet the minimum standards in the following areas:
Clarity of Representation. Score: 2 out of 5. Unsatisfactory. Typical reviewer comment: Objects in these paintings are indistinct, muddy.
Use of line. Score: 1 out of 5. Very unsatisfactory. Typical reviewer comment: Monsieur Monet seems to have no concept of using continuous brush strokes to render lines defining the edges of objects in his work. These “works” are nothing but a bunch of dots of paint. Strange.
Classical allusion. Score 1 out of Five. Very unsatisfactory. Typical reviewer comment: No classical allusion at all in these works!!! Monet seems not to understand that it is the business of the artist to convey the ideals to be derived from Classical mythology via precise, lifelike representation of events and characters from those myths.
Please desist from painting until you have completed the necessary remediation. To that end, please feel free to enroll in one of our online courses and to retake the test. Highly recommended: The Grandeur That Was Greece Paint-by-Number I and 2.
Mon Cher Kandinsky:
The Pearson Academy regrets to inform you that your work is unacceptable for analysis for its Certification Examination for Painters. A bunch of random colors and shapes on a canvas is not a painting. Mon Dieu! Once you have created some ACTUAL PAINTINGS for examination, feel free to submit those along with a check in the amount of €500.
Pearson, Not Persons
Because we know better than you do.
Brilliant, Bob.
Bob, this is lovely exercise, and timely.
Several former Pearson executives have become part of Ridge-Lane Limited Partners.
Thomas J. Ridge is the former Secretary of US Department of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania. Ridge is a longtime supporter of school choice and vouchers.
R. Brad Lane’s wealth comes from Land Financial Corporation where he managed investments for high-net-worth individuals. With no obvious credentials, Lane has been a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. According to his LinkedIn profile, this program is called “Transforming Education: Bridging Research and Practice via Public-Private Partnerships.
This firm is about three years old. The current website lists about 60 “formers”– executives who are currently involved in this “social market investment” outfit, providing entrepreneurs with their presumed expertise for unknown fees. Here are the formers from Pearson with lightly edited bios are from the website.
–David Daniels, Managing Partner. President of Pearson for over twenty years. CEO of Pearson Embanet (online). Managing Director of Pearson Higher Education Services, with executive responsibilities for the Pearson Learning Studio Platform, Equella Content Repository, and Smarthinking Tutoring. Oversaw the diversification of Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing from $8 Million in annual revenues to over $200 Million, eventually becoming Pearson Custom Publishing and Pearson Learning Solutions with a focus on online learning. The online team produces courses for K-12, higher education, and career education.
–Ziggy Liaqat, Partner. Former Global Chief Operations Officer at Pearson, and COO of North America at Pearson, where he delivered multi-hundred million dollar cost savings while changing a legacy education publishing business to a modern digital learning sciences company.
–José María Tomé, Partner. Recently the Chief Financial and Operations Officer of Pearson Latin America and Global Head of Indirect Procurement. Previous work as Executive Vice President of International Education Systems (early childhood to university, some programs offering the International Baccalaureate). Co-led a joint online venture in Mexico, acquisition of a K-12 learning system in Brazil (one of the world’s largest).
–Steven Guttentag, Partner. Recently served as the Managing Director and President of Pearson Online & Blended Learning K–12. He was part of the founding team of Connections Academy, a global leader in K–12 virtual learning.
–Phil Hoffman, Venture Partner. Former Chief Corporate Finance and Strategic Development Officer of Pearson Education, prior roles as Executive Vice President and Global Chief Collaboration Officer. He also served as CEO of Pearson’s consumer education division, President of Pearson’s North American operations, and Chief Financial Officer of Pearson North America. Mr. Hoffman served on Pearson’s executive committee for 15 years, and was responsible for over 100 acquisitions, JV’s, and venture investments in excess of $20B.
Others at Ridge Lane LLP with status as “formers” are ready to cash in on by enlisting clients in four business categories: Real Estate, Education, Sustainability (roads, bridges ,infrastructure projects, climate change) and Information Technology. A bunch of the IT investors are former state officials in charge of data, tech purchases, security and the like.
The business will help entrepreneurs with proven track records in business expand their ventures “at scale.”
They say that criminals always return to the scene of the crime.
On Wednesday evening in Boston, Citizens for Public Schools here in Boston was honored to host Diane as part of her Slaying Goliath book tour. Together with Diane were Maurice Cunningham, a professor at UMass, who has dedicated himself to exposing dark money and Barbara Madeloni, former President of the Massachusetts Teachers Union.
As noted in Diane’s book, in 2012, Madeloni was a teacher educator at UMass Amherst, when she was directed to pilot edTPA. She and 68 of her 69 students decided to just say no, or in Barbara’s words, “to put a stick in the gears”. For this, Madeloni was fired from her position. That led to her election as MTA President, positing her to lead the largest teachers organization in the state to beat back the Waltons’ quest to eliminate the cap on charter school expansion.
Madeloni was right when she published this post in Rethinking Schools in 2013; and she’s still right today.
https://www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/wrong-answer-to-the-wrong-question-why-we-need-critical-teacher-education-not-standardization
We need critical teacher education, not standardization. Oh yes, yes, yes!!!! Amen to that!!!!
Please note, these are my RECOMMENDATIONS for what should be taught in an English teacher preparation program. These are definitely NOT meant to be carved in stone. They represent, instead, what I would implement TO BEGIN WITH if I were in charge of designing such a program.
Teacher preparation and testing by professors within teacher preparation programs, not outside testing! I now. Not a very catchy slogan, that. Perhaps SomeDAM can work on it. LOL.
Twenty years ago, my university used the Teacher Work Sample as an assessment in our teacher preparation program. It was used for more than 10 years but was replaced by the EdTPA by state requirement. There are no perfect assessments of teaching and the TWS had some limitations including the additional burdens placed on student teachers in developing it as well as the scoring time required by faculty on campus. The pluses were that it did give teacher preparation faculty a window into the work of their students that we did not have previously and became one additional source of information for our program assessment system. It was not used as a high stakes test and final judgments regarding performance was left to student teacher supervisors and cooperating teachers.
The sad part was that it was replaced by the EdTPA at a much higher cost to the student and our faculty were taken out of the loop. I really feel that any effort by teachers and/or teacher educators to develop good assessments that support learning and instruction are undercut by testing companies and their influence on policy makers.