At the secondary level, each of the three tasks includesfive rubrics with
five-point scales, totalling 15 rubrics and 75 points across the assessment. Because
of strong foci in both mathematics and literacy at the elementary level, those
edTPAs include subject-matter instructional components and rubrics for both
domains. The commentaries range in allowable length from three pages for the
context for learningcommentary to 10 pages for theassessmentcommentary. Other
more specific rules apply to the various components of the assessment: for example,
the assessment handbook for secondary history/social studies indicates that lesson
plans shall be no more than four pages in length, video clips featuring targeted
groups of students shall include no fewer than four learners, and verbal feedback on
students’work samples (if there is any) shall be recorded and submitted separately
from the instructional artifacts (SCALE 2014 ). The rubrics emphasize character-
istics of teaching that are widely considered to be indicative of effectiveness. These
characteristics include drawing from students’prior knowledge and experiences as
assets for planning and instruction, representing the subject matter in ways that
meet different learners’needs, and using analyses of classroom interactions and
assessment results to inform ongoing practice.
Presently, the edTPA fulfils multiple roles across the United States, proliferating
at state levels as licensure requirements and local levels as teacher education pro-
gram assessments. In 2015, the states of Wisconsin and Georgia joined New York
and Washington in mandating the edTPA as a high-stakes, state-level certification
test, with others (e.g., Illinois, Oregon, and Hawaii) following suit in subsequent
years (AACTE 2015 ). By contrast, the Tennessee Board of Education approved the
edTPA as an alternative to the state’s written certification tests in 2013, upon the
encouragement of several piloting universities. In more than a dozen other states
where no policy exists for consequential use of the assessment (e.g., Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, and Indiana), some teacher education institutions have adopted the
edTPA as a program-level evaluation tool.
Alongside variations in its roles and uses, the edTPA’s standards of performance
and consequencesfluctuate from place to place. For example, Washington’s and
New York’s cut scores for passing are markedly different, generating a pass rate
(and thus, a licensure eligibility rate) of approximately 98% in Washington and
about 80% in New York in 2014. Further, some states and institutions of higher
education have moved relatively quickly to require the edTPA’s passage for cer-
tification and graduation respectively, while others have taken several years to pilot
the assessment and plan for its integration into their policies and programs. Taking
into consideration the edTPA’s substantive depth and complexity, its myriad
functions and modes of implementation across the United States, and—as the
following section explains—disparate positions on its suitability as a lever for
change in teaching and teacher education, it is unsurprising that interpretations of
the assessment’s value and significance vary substantially.
40 Representing Teaching Within High-Stakes Teacher... 599