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

Contact Information

Kathleen Paliokaskathyp@ccsso.org

202-336-7058

Carlene KirkpatrickCarlene_L_kirkpatrick@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us