Letter from the Editorial Board

Abstract

Stanford University and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), along with other preparation institutions, are currently piloting a Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) program. The TPA, based on the successful Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), (AACTE) is being piloted in twenty states. The goal of the TPA consortium is to develop a available (AACTE, 2011) with which to assess performance. This is a significant development in assessment and, as such, is an issue of importance for The High School Journal. There has never before been a nationally available instrument to measure performance apart from the valueadded model, which is a highly contested measure and ultimately dependent on student, rather than teacher, performance. Furthermore, the TPA is being piloted in the context of the teacher accountability era. Some of the discourse surrounding accountability, such as that highlighted in the documentary Waiting for Superman, presents teachers in a less than positive light. In light of these concerns, this editorial will posit critical questions about the TPA that will need to be answered by researchers and highlight reasons to feel optimism and skepticism towards the evaluation model. First, a little more detail about the TPA is in order. According to the TPA consortium website (http://aacte.org) the TPA consists of two components: Embedded Signature Assessments (ESA) and a common portfolio assessment. ESAs vary from to program, are embedded in coursework, and reflect program specific teaching philosophies or goals that contribute to the unique character of graduates. (AACTE, 2011) The larger portion of the assessment is a portfolio, universal to all participating programs, based on teaching events. The portfolio has two components: teaching evidence and commentary. Teaching evidence includes artifacts such as lesson plans, video recorded lessons, and student work. The second component is commentary in which teachers explain the professional judgment underlying the teaching and artifacts. Simply put, teachers provide evidence of what they are doing in the class and explain why they did what they did. As a further note, separate forms are provided for elementary teachers and subject-specific secondary teachers. The move towards a standardized assessment begs several questions. Student high stakes tests have had multiple, and often damaging, unintended consequences; what unintended consequences will result from standard assessments? What is the relationship between standardization for student assessment and the new assessment? If the pilot programs prove measurably successful, how will teachers, education programs, state legislatures, and the public respond? Finally, would a national assessment more closely represent a professionalization of the field of teaching or the slippery slope of national standardization and the marginalization of local decision-making? We encourage educational researchers to begin to consider these questions. Having examined the TPA, the editorial board of The High School Journal looks on the TPA with cautious optimism. In light of the information provided by AACTE, there are a few issues with which we encourage educators to be cautious. The first is our concern about the purposes of the TPA. The purpose of a truly meaningful assessment is not merely to evaluate, but to lead to improvement in practice. This leads to questions of purposes for three constituents. For TPA developers who provide training for school administrators to use the TPA, will the communicated purpose more closely resemble teacher grading or teacher improvement? When school administrators actively use the TPA among the multitude of their other tasks, will the TPA more closely resemble checking off another item on the agenda or a chance to have meaningful pedagogical conversations with their teachers, leading to improved practice? …