My comments echo the points of my colleagues from Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Faculty from the eight Tennessee universities who participated in the 2012 field test (and earlier pilot) report that working with the TPA has led to more focused and fruitful conversations about aims for candidates and how to achieve them. The TPA has provided shared language and images of sound teaching practices and what it looks like to learn them. There is a strong sense of alignment with core values that I think has been key to TPA’s broad appeal among university faculty and our school-based partners.

At Vanderbilt, program changes based on TPA data have resulted in noticeable differences in our graduates’ readiness for the field. For example, our early work with the TPA revealed that candidates were having difficulty analyzing student work and giving students usable feedback. In response we have revised coursework and field assignments to provide more opportunities for practice in these areas. We are now beginning to see the payoff in candidates’ teaching.

Admittedly, some parts of the implementation have felt grueling. So what has compelled us to stick with it? First, what makes this model tough is what makes it potent: it examines and supports candidates’ abilities to do what teaching takes, with real learners, in real time. Second, in providing a common language and working vision of good practice, the TPA links us to a network of smart and committed educators from across the country, working on the shared challenge of enabling teachers to serve all learners well.

Marcy Singer-Gabella
Peabody College of Education
Vanderbilt University

Let me offer a different perspective: the TPA is the product of a consortium of teacher educators, as well as state policy makers, who are working to develop a worthwhile measure of the core of effective beginning teaching (CEBT). Inherently, then, the TPA advances a definition of CEBT, specifically planning based on knowledge of one's students' needs and strengths, engaging students in understanding, providing consideration for academic language demands, and analyzing one's teaching effectiveness through purposeful assessment. This represents a definition that is clear, concise, and precise. The TPA provides an authentic, direct, performance-bas ed assessment of a candidate's ability to demonstrate proficiency. At this point in concept, while we await field-test results, this is the most robust assessment (and definition) the teacher education profession has advanced. It provides us in teacher education, as well as the public to whom we are accountable, a common touch point to describe our responsibility and to evaluate our effectiveness. I, for one, obviously welcome the opportunity.

As someone who completed a Master of Education in Instructional Leadership with certification to teach secondary history and social studies at a large state university in Illinois a year ago, I empathize with the folks at UMass. I also stand in solidarity with them. I was volunteered to be a part of this exact same pilot program. It's called TPAC. I opted out of the pilot program for a number of reasons. Little did I know it was worse than I thought.

First, the College of Education at my institution had no idea what it was dealing with. A mandate came down from the State and they thought they'd use us teacher trainees as guinea pigs. What they asked of us was unreasonably burdensome. Student teaching is tough. Getting a placement in an environment in which one can experience a true professional apprenticeship is even tougher. And then to ask a student teacher to potentially compromise himself by videotaping the classroom shows a lack of forethought. Schools volunteer to accept student teachers. There's no mandate to take them in. And once schools get a whiff of these TPAC requirements fewer will want to accept student teachers, making it even harder for higher education institutions to find placements for their teacher trainees. As you can see, only fools rush in.

Sadly, and more broadly, the fact that this TPAC evaluation system even exists reflects the profound distrust and disconnect between government, the public, and (real) education professionals. It's maddening to think that university professors and administrators - experts with PhDs - are so willing to yield to state bureaucrats and corporate for-profit interests. Do they not realize that this TPAC evaluation system is a step towards standardizing what they teach and how they teach it? Just like K-12 teachers, these folks' professional judgment is now being compromised as well. Academic freedom is waning.

Unfortunately, teacher trainees in Illinois soon won't be as lucky as me. They will have to comply with the State's mandate. In the near future, these folks (some of whom I happen to teach and advise at the moment) will have to endure the pain (and perhaps shame) of this madness called the TPAC. And then corporate revenues will grow while politicians' campaign coffers swell. The hijacking of public education is in full swing – now even at the post-secondary level. Those in a position to lead must not just sit there and take it. Shame on them if they do. Here's to the courage exhibited by the students and teachers at UMass. They, and those like them, should not go down without a fight.

Scott Fenwick
Graduate Program Assistant
Teaching of History
University of Illinois at Chicago