remediation of failing candidates uc san diego, education studies bobbie allen chris halter rachel...
TRANSCRIPT
Remediation of Failing Candidates
UC San Diego, Education StudiesBobbie AllenChris Halter
Rachel Millstone
UC San Diego Programs Multiple
Subject Credential, M.Ed. ~50
students/yr. Student
teaching
Secondary Single Subject, M.Ed. ~30-40
students/yr. Math,
Science, English interns
PACT Passing StandardCandidates pass the Teaching Event if they
pass all five rubric categories(P-I-A-R-A) AND have no more than 2 failing scores of “1” across tasks.
To pass a category, candidates must have a majority (at least half) passing scores within the category. In Planning, 2 out of 3 scores must be a “2” or higher; in Instruction, Assessment, Reflection, and Academic Language, 1 out of 2 scores must be a “2” or higher.
(Feedback rubric is not factored in this year).
UC San Diego Case Studies When does remediation take place? Who does it? What form does it take?
Candidates complete PACT Teaching Events in April; they are scored in late April with remediation opportunity window in May-June.
Case Study #1 Not making adequate
progress Directed to complete a
second year of internship/student teaching and not attempt the T.E.
Case Study #2 Failed one task (assessment) Counseled to review guiding
questions and redo task using same collection of assessments as initially collected
T.E. rescored by scorer not previously familiar with candidate’s original T.E.
Case Study #3 Candidate failed teaching event by
multiple scorers. Planning 2,2,2 2,2,2 2,2,2 Instruction 2,1 2,1 2,1 Assessment 2,2 2,1 2,1 Reflection 2,1 2,1 1,1 Academic 1,1 1,1 1,1
Language
Planning Not clear how the EL student who has
trouble with vocabulary is helped by a sheet that has each section of the conclusion/reflection typed.
Reference to Venn Diagram? WHY will it help the students?
Plans refer to student “prior knowledge” but not clear what that is.
Seems to use language of the rubric without evidence for meeting it.
Instruction At times student responses are ignored by
the teacher in the clips. Teacher repeatedly aids in focusing the
microscopes for the students, such that the opportunity does not exist for the students to develop this skill on their own.
Assessment “Completion” and “accuracy” are listed as
the criteria for assessment, yet student work sample #2 was labeled as a maximum “4” when “air bubbles” were listed as a common element seen in cells.
Entire commentary is vague. Next steps are not described in any detail.
Reflection Daily reflections are merely summaries of
the lesson. Misuse of theory (Howard Gardner and VAK
modalities) Candidate places the onus for learning on
the students’ individual intelligences, rather than on anything he does as a teacher.
A few erroneous conclusions listed.
Academic Language Understands role of vocabulary, but too
late for any impact. Some contradictory comments about vocabulary being alternately important and not important.
Candidate mentions that about 1/4 of class has trouble with text structure, but his response does not provide a plan to address the problem: “These students can improve their ability to answer questions completely and in the correct format.”
Choices for Case #3 Redo a new Teaching Event (all tasks) OR Complete additional internship/student teaching
(another quarter, summer session?) Rescored after 3 meetings with faculty member
using guiding questions to facilitate a discussion over drafts of the tasks)
Planning 3,3,2Instruction 2,2Assessment 2,3Reflection 3,2Academic Language 2,2
Case #4 Candidate was Deaf; completed the
Bilingual Math PACT with accommodations.
Deadlines were extended for the written portion of the PACT.
