Identity Development of a Teacher Preparation Program in Response to edTPA

• In Event: Implementing the edTPA—a National Performance-Based Assessment: Research on Concerns, Implications, and Impact

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Those responsible for preparing educators have had extensive rule changes (e.g., “Mother Rule” 505-3-.01, Georgia Professional Standards Commission, October, 2014) thrust upon them, which threaten to reduce the uniqueness of each teacher preparation program and compel them to generate a standardized product. One of the most intrusive high-stakes requirements is the standardized teaching performance assessment, edTPA. In addition to passing edTPA, candidates in this state must meet standards on a more rigorous content exam, complete Ethics modules at expected levels upon entrance and exit, have exposure to Georgia’s new teacher evaluation system, and successfully undergo a year-long student teaching internship. We agree with Schulte (2012) and others (Dover, Schultz, Smith, K, & Duggan, 2015) who question whether regulations standardizing teacher performance through high stakes assessment and holding teacher educators accountable for restricted conceptions of teaching (Caughlan & Jiang, 2014; Sato, 2014) have become the legislative response to societal issues over which educators have little control. Through this poster we will detail how we resisted standardization by establishing our organizational identity.

Theoretical Framework

In fall 2013, sensing that the “Mother Rule” would impinge upon our purpose and commitment as a young, small, teacher preparation program, we sought a means to empower Education faculty and professional staff members to counter any negative effects from regimentation that might ensue. Expressly, we objected to narrow conceptions of effective teaching that edTPA fostered (Sato, 2014) because it conflicted with our philosophically pragmatic position of viewing teaching effectiveness as relative and contextual.
Using the impending implementation of edTPA as an occasion to ascertain our values and beliefs, we applied the construct of organizational identity (Albert & Whetten, 1986) through a case study method (Yin, 2013) to characterize who we were as an organization; identify what about the program was “central, enduring, and distinctive” (Whetten, 2006, p. 220); and establish those features that we would be unwilling to relinquish should we be pressured to minimize program diversity. Our responses illustrate the attributes that Whetten (2006) indicates are the organization’s identity referents.
We also employed Bolman and Deal’s (1991) “Four Frames” to categorize leadership orientations and organizational development. We probed the responsibilities undertaken by faculty during a collaborative project and aligned those to stages of development of the unit in order to isolate the events that mapped onto our program identity. We outlined our collective response as an education unit to resist the potential standardization from reform mandates by acknowledging our identity development, which enabled us to hold to our unique program and recommit to our purpose with integrity.

Findings and Significance

In total, three program artifacts were examined for elements of organizational identity referents: 1) the Conceptual Framework, 2) faculty collaborative work using the Bolman and Deal Framework (1991), and 3) the decision to publish findings in order to build resistance to standardization as a pivotal point in program development. We suggest that programs concerned with the ill effects of standardization consider organizational identity exploration as a beneficial response to external mandates such as edTPA.

Authors

• Karynne L M Kleine, Young Harris College

• Sharon C Jackson, Young Harris College

• Mark D Brunner, Young Harris College