Examining Diverse Perspectives of edTPA Policy Implementation Across States: The Good,the Bad,and the Ugly

Abstract

Since 2009, the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has been rapidly implemented as a policy tool for strengthening teacher professionalization across the United States. However, its national assimilation has become a target for both praise and critique among teacher educators. In this article, we examine such diverse perspectives. Highlighting the sensemaking of administrators, faculty, staff, and teacher candidates (n = 75) across eight teacher preparation programs (TPPs) in two states, we examine how they have responded to varied edTPA policy designs and program contexts. Results show that both policy design and programmatic differences influence how these stakeholders have perceived and implemented edTPA—either as a framework for inquiry or compliance. In the process, we contend that edTPA has many promises and pitfalls as a scalable policy tool for preparing and assessing future teachers.

Keywords

edTPA education policy teacher education preparation case study qualitative research

Introduction

For decades, teacher educators and policymakers have sought to strengthen teacher professionalization (Cohen et al., 2020). With this in mind, the status of the profession has been reframed as a policy problem (Cochran-Smith, 2004). As a potential solution, the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has gained considerable traction. Developed by Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE), edTPA is a subject-specific, performance-based teacher support and assessment system (Whittaker et al., 2018). It requires teacher candidates to videotape their teaching and reflect via three tasks: (a) planning for instruction and assessment, (b) instructing and engaging students in learning, and (c) assessing student learning (SCALE, 2018). As of 2020, more than 900 teacher preparation programs (TPPs) across 41 states (and District of Columbia) have begun using the assessment system (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2020).

By design, edTPA provides a framework for defining, preparing, and measuring teaching performance. It is meant to be an objective indicator of preservice teachers’ readiness to teach. Much like Danielson’s (2007) Framework for Teaching, however, policymakers have repurposed the assessment system as a policy tool. At the time of this writing, 18 states have adopted edTPA for licensure, with two others taking steps toward such ends (AACTE, 2020). Among teacher educators, this has been met with praise and critique (De Voto & Thomas, 2020; Hutt et al., 2018; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Ratner & Kolman, 2016). Advocates argue edTPA provides a valid, standardized framework to measure whether teacher candidates can plan, instruct, and assess once in the field (Bastian et al., 2016; SCALE, 2019; Whittaker et al., 2018). Furthermore, they argue it builds capacity, improves TPPs, and informs induction of new teachers (Peck et al., 2014; Sloan, 2013). Meanwhile, opponents argue edTPA reflects the privatization of education and devalues institutional knowledge (Dover et al., 2015; Greenblatt & O’Hara, 2015; Henning, Dover, Dotson, & Agarwal-Rangnath, 2018). They also question whether it is a valid measure (Gitomer et al., 2019; Henning, Dover, Dotson, Agarwal-Rangath, Clayton, et al., 2018; Lalley, 2016), given its limited view of social justice pedagogy (Dover, 2018; Sato, 2014) and mixed correlation with classroom effectiveness (Goldhaber et al., 2017). Therefore, our study seeks to objectively examine these diverse perspectives via those on the front lines of edTPA implementation.

Although some research has examined how TPPs make sense of and implement edTPA (e.g., Cohen et al., 2020; De Voto & Thomas, 2020; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016; Ratner & Kolman, 2016), our study builds on this base by examining various constituencies within TPPs (i.e., administrators, faculty, staff, and candidates) and across TPPs. Equally, it examines how associated state policy designs and organizational factors play a role in this process. We use a multiple-embedded case study (Yin, 2013). Two different states were selected—Illinois and Iowa—along with four TPPs in each state. We draw upon interviews (n = 69), focus groups (n = 6), and documents to examine how these various constituencies sensemake edTPA. In particular, we focus on the intersection between policy design and local program context. We then analyze how this intersection promotes or constrains edTPA as a tool for inquiry or compliance. Our research question is as follows:

Research Question 1: How are different stakeholders (i.e., administrators, faculty, staff, and teacher candidates) perceiving and responding to edTPA within and across TPPs—as a tool for inquiry or compliance?

Research Question 1a: How do associated state policy designs influence this process?

Research Question 1b: What are the major organizational factors similarly playing a role?

Background Literature

Although more than 900 TPPs across 41 states (and D.C.) use edTPA (AACTE, 2020), there are surprisingly few empirical studies examining how edTPA is being understood and implemented. Notwithstanding, three studies provided a practical background for our research question. First, Ledwell and Oyler (2016) focused on how instructors’ methodological perspectives influenced edTPA adoption within one private institution. They found implementers mainly exhibited two responses: those marginalizing and those integrating edTPA. Integrating responses included, “edTPA-aligned program assessments, the addition of content that had not previously been addressed through program curricula such as specific attention to the vocabulary of differentiated instruction, and a repurposing of the student teaching seminar to concentrate on edTPA preparation” (Ledwell & Oyler, 2016, p. 128). In contrast, those marginalizing edTPA, “Stated that a primary demand of the [assessment] was learning how to ‘follow directions’ or ‘jump through hoops’” (p. 129).

Second, studying how teacher educators supported candidates taking edTPA in New York, Ratner and Kolman (2016) found some institutions that obeyed, bent, or broke policy rules. Speaking directly to breaking policy rules, they found such responses were rooted “in stance and its intersection with ethical, pedagogical, and logistical dilemmas . . . faced [during] implementation” (p. 12). That is, resistance was largely connected to preconceived notions of assessment, teacher education, and the complicated logistics of student teaching.

Finally, Cohen et al. (2020) examined how one Maryland TPP made sense of and responded to edTPA when preparing teacher candidates. They found the context in which edTPA was implemented, including policy design, faculty buy-in, perceived edTPA knowledge, perceptions of the assessment, and alignment with programmatic coherence all framed teacher candidates’ perceptions of and engagement with edTPA. This suggests that faculty perceptions and support is a key indicator of teacher candidates’ edTPA perceptions (also see De Voto & Thomas, 2020).

Taken together, research to date illustrates that differences in TPP responses are largely about whether those tasked with implementation believe edTPA supports their notion of what good teaching is and how best to measure it. With this in mind, two opposing outcomes have been documented that we are chiefly interested in examining across associated policy designs: edTPA as a tool for inquiry (Peck et al., 2010, 2014; Whittaker et al., 2018), or edTPA as a tool for compliance (Dover & Schultz, 2016; Ledwell & Oyler, 2016). Although these implementation outcomes represent different views, they are not mutually exclusive. Some universities are simultaneously engaging in programmatic inquiry and criticizing the philosophical underpinnings of edTPA. Accordingly, we further discuss each outcome, and how our study can theoretically examine them.

edTPA as a Tool for Inquiry

Seeing edTPA as a catalyst for change, many TPPs across the United States have utilized edTPA to inform continuous improvement, examine program alignment, and spark redesign (Bastian et al., 2018; Kissau et al., 2019; Peck et al., 2014; Price, 2016). As Adkins et al. (2015) suggest, “We have been committed to moving beyond compliance with state policy to using edTPA as a positive force to support critical faculty inquiry into teaching and learning” (p. 1). Faculty have further developed organizational structures to integrate edTPA into TPPs and support students, including assigning an edTPA coordinator, developing edTPA workshops and bootcamps, and establishing edTPA advisory committees (Olson & Rao, 2017; Price, 2016). Through these responses, edTPA acts as an important lever for programmatic inquiry, serving to increase teacher education rigor, raise standards for teacher quality, and improve teacher education practice.

edTPA as a Tool for Compliance

Much like past reforms, edTPA implementation has been met with criticism and compliance. This has undermined the assessment system’s potential to be a tool for inquiry across TPPs (Dover & Schultz, 2016). In these cases, TPPs fulfill the requirements, but without essential buy-in needed for the assessment to be the improvement lever it was designed to be (Whittaker et al., 2018). Such limited buy-in is often related to associated state policy mandates, and the extent to which edTPA aligns to their programmatic mission (De Voto & Thomas, 2020; Gurl et al., 2016). So, while edTPA has indeed prompted changes across TPPs, we have yet to see the extent to which its implementation has strengthened teacher education or provided a framework for long-lasting program redesign.

Our Study’s Contribution

Building upon this research base, our study examines the extent to which different state policy designs and organizational factors influence such opposing views/outcomes within and across TPPs (Research Questions 1a and 1b). Indeed, research highlights this intersection’s potential. Studies from states mandating edTPA (e.g., New York and Illinois) have often become hotbeds for TPP criticism (see Dover et al., 2015; Gurl et al., 2016) whereas those doing so voluntarily have not (e.g., Bastian & Lys, 2018). Equally, a host of organizational factors appear important during implementation, including leadership (De Voto, 2019; De Voto & Thomas, 2020; Whittaker et al., 2018), collaboration (Peck et al., 2009), funding (De Voto, 2019; De Voto & Thomas, 2020; Gurl et al., 2016), and coupling (De Voto, 2019). Therefore, in an effort to trace this relationship, our conceptual framework draws upon the theory of sensemaking using literature from policy implementation and organizational dynamics.

Conceptual Framework

This study is grounded in Spillane et al.’s (2002) cognitive implementation framework, which argues that implementing agents interpret policy through their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. These interpretations are further shaped by a range of macro-, meso-, and micro-elements, including policy design, organizational factors, and individuals (also see Coburn, 2001, 2005; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977). Using this framework as a means to examine sensemaking and policy implementation of edTPA, we offer a conceptual framework for our study.

Policy Design

The messages implicit in the design shape the ways in which implementing agents initially make sense of a given policy (Spillane et al., 2002, 2006)—coercively or voluntarily (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000). When states or other bureaucratic systems adopt policies in a forceful, regulatory manner, they become “coercive.” Such designs often cause implementers to only satisfy the letter of the law—not its envisioned spirit (Berman, 1986). Conversely, when they adopt policies in a more “voluntary” capacity, a reciprocal relationship between state and locale is formed (Elmore, 1979). This often causes implementers to behave in a manner far exceeding the minimum (Firestone, 1989). In this study, we examine these binary policy signals as TPPs implement edTPA, and their messages conveyed about what good teaching is and how best to measure it.

Organizational Factors

As implementing agents respond to new policies and their associated designs, sensemaking becomes further situated within their respective local context (Spillane et al., 2002). In the process, fidelity is likely to occur only if a policy results in: (a) low levels of conflict; (b) agreements about problems, facts, and theories; and (c) professional forms for discussion (Jones & McBeth, 2010). Broadly, these elements point to an organization’s overall “will” and capacities to make sense of policy demands (McLaughlin, 1987). Capacity can be defined as the ability to comply with policy whereas will measures the inclination to do so (McLaughlin, 1987).

In an effort to examine organizational capacity and will as it relates to sensemaking, we looked at TPPs’ structures (Hopkins et al., 2013), routines (Spillane et al., 2011), and tools (Spillane & Miele, 2007). Structures like leadership (Coburn, 2005; Spillane et al., 2002) and coupling (Firestone, 1989) shape what information is accessible and collectively shared (Coburn & Russell, 2008). Meanwhile, routines and tools are tethered to structures by supporting or constraining how policy demands are collectively met (Sherer & Spillane, 2011).

Individuals

Although policy designs and local contextual differences create an “invisible hand” (Weick, 1995)—that is, unconsciously shifting actors’ sensemaking toward a collective singularity—individuals still bring their own ideologies, interests, and information (Weiss, 1983). Known as “street-level bureaucracy” (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977), these idiosyncrasies predispose individuals to particular patterns of action—that of obedience or resistance (Weiss, 1983). Within TPPs, such collective/individual forces make up their organizational mission—that is, behavior and values. This mission can be compatible or incompatible with edTPA’s demands.

In sum, policy sensemaking is not a technical, rational, top–down process. Rather, it is an interplay between different policy levels (Banner et al., 2012) that influence agents’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs (Spillane et al., 2002). Toward these ends, De Voto (2019) provides a practical foundation, arguing three different responses exist as actors make sense of edTPA across policy designs (i.e., coercive/voluntary) and organizational contexts (i.e., capacities/will): (a) actively using, (b) cosmetically complying, and (c) actively resisting. In the process, edTPA becomes a tool for inquiry or compliance.

When organizational capacities and will are high, stakeholders typically become active users (regardless of coercive/voluntary policy design), verbally and/or physically supporting its implementation. This results in edTPA becoming an inquiry-based tool, as defined by the literature above. In contrast, when organizational capacities and will are low (particularly under a coercive design), stakeholders tend to cosmetically comply or actively resist. Cosmetic compliance can be defined as meeting the policy tool’s demands, but not its intent, whereas active resistance can be defined as verbally and/or physically resisting its implementation. edTPA subsequently becomes a compliance-based tool. To illustrate how this intersection influences edTPA sensemaking and subsequent implementation, we use Figure 1.

Figure 1.

How differences in policy design, organizational capacities, and will influence edTPA sensemaking.

By highlighting the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of TPP administrators, faculty, staff, and teacher candidates across states and TPPs, we extend prior edTPA implementation research. Not only do we consider “the range of identities and beliefs that shape perceptions” (Cohen et al., 2020) of edTPA, we consider how different policy designs and organizational factors further play a role. To date, no known published research has explicitly examined this intersection as it relates to edTPA sensemaking, and how they, together, either produce inquiry or compliance. We next discuss our methods.

Method

Design

To allow for rigorous examination across policy levels, we used a multiple-embedded case design (Yin, 2013). We first selected two case states—Illinois and Iowa. These states represented the two policy designs associated with edTPA (i.e., coercive vs. voluntary). Illinois mandates edTPA for all teacher candidates whereas Iowa gives TPPs the option to adopt edTPA for licensure (among others). We briefly discuss both states below.

Illinois

In fall 2015, Illinois joined six other states adopting a coercive policy design. Prior to its official launch, however, the assessment system was piloted by many TPPs (including some of our embedded cases). During this time, edTPA was not consequential for teacher licensure—Praxis II met this requirement. But given Praxis II was not performance-based, the state considered replacing it with edTPA. Less than a year later, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) recommended edTPA, which state policymakers ultimately approved. Subsection 25.720 of the Illinois Administrative Code stated, “Beginning September 1, 2015, each [teacher] candidate completing an educator preparation program in a teaching field shall be required to pass the edTPA” (Illinois Admin. Code tit. 23 § 25.720 (e)). Accordingly, both traditional and alternative TPPs had to comply with the mandate. In fall 2015, the passing score was initially set at 35, and was set to incrementally rise to 41 beginning in fall 2019. The intent of ramping up the score was to give TPPs time to properly embed the assessment system. However, in late fall 2019, ISBE voted to revert back to a passing score of 39 for 15-rubric and 35 for 13-rubric edTPA exams given pressure from higher education institutions.

Iowa

Similar to 11 other states, Iowa has adopted a voluntary policy design. In 2012, SCALE partnered with Iowa through a federal Teaching Quality Project (TQP) grant. Under TQP, funding and support were provided to TPPs who voluntarily adopted edTPA (including several of our embedded cases). TPPs who voluntarily adopted edTPA had to pay students since Praxis II was also required for teacher licensure. In the process, Iowa began to reconsider its licensure requirements more broadly. Like Illinois, they wanted to evaluate candidates using a performance-based assessment. But because Iowa is rooted in local control, they mandated the use of a “nationally normed” assessment for program completion, not licensure. Iowa’s Administrative Code states, “The unit’s [i.e., TPP’s] assessment system shall appropriately monitor individual candidate performance and use that data in concert with other information to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs” (Iowa Admin. Code tit. 282 § 79.13). Since 2015, PPAT, Praxis II, and edTPA have been authorized for this requirement. Programs that voluntarily choose edTPA must use a cut score of 41, but may use Praxis II as a “backup” assessment.

Embedded Cases

To examine edTPA within and across TPPs, four embedded cases were selected within each state. In Illinois, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, and Ford University were selected (all pseudonyms). In Iowa, Roosevelt, Adams, Madison, and Johnson University were selected. These TPPs were purposefully chosen to reflect a public, private, urban, rural, homogeneous/heterogeneous population, and alternative case in each state. They also served as a proxy for studying variances in organizational capacities, will, and programmatic mission (see Rainey & Bozeman, 2000). See Table 1 describing each case.

Table 1.

Selected TPPs and Their Demographics.

Embedded TPP	Type	Size	Classification	Public/private	Research classification	Demographics
Illinois
Jefferson	Traditional	Large	Urban	Public	Highest activity	Diverse
Hamilton	Traditional	Mid-size	Urban	Private	High activity	Homogeneous
Lincoln	Traditional	Mid-size	Rural	Public	High activity	Homogeneous
Ford	Alternative	Small	Suburban	Private	Limited activity	Diverse
Iowa
Roosevelt	Traditional	Large	Urban	Public	Highest activity	Homogeneous
Adams	Traditional	Small	Rural	Public	Limited activity	Homogeneous
Madison	Traditional	Small	Urban	Private	Medium activity	Homogeneous
Johnson	Alternative	Large	Suburban	Public	Limited activity	Homogeneous

Note. To protect the identities of selected TPPs, we specifically kept our description rather general. TPPs = teacher preparation programs.

Data Sources and Procedures

Within these embedded cases, we identified TPP administrators, faculty, and staff in one of two ways: institutional website biographies or snowball sampling. Over three years, interviews were conducted by the first author using a semi-structured protocol (n = 63). Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 min. They purposely interviewed at least one administrator, faculty, and staff member to trace edTPA sensemaking across organizational strata. A minimum of five and a maximum of 15 were interviewed at each embedded TPP. They also interviewed faculty across Illinois and Iowa TPPs outside selected cases (n = 6; three in each state), providing an additional layer of comparison. Overall, participation rates were about 85%.

To bridge sensemaking and the intersection of policy design/local TPP implementation, the semi-structured interview protocol incorporated two different lines of questioning. The first section asked interviewees to explain their attitudes toward edTPA, positively (e.g., “What, if anything, do you think are the positive aspects of edTPA with relation to preparing effective teachers?”) and negatively (e.g., “What concerns, if any, do you have about edTPA being used as an assessment of teacher candidates?”). Questions also solicited whether the associated policy design (see Research Question 1a) they operated under (e.g., “How does the fact that the edTPA is mandatory (Illinois)/optional (Iowa) for your students/institution play into your feelings about the effectiveness of this assessment?”) and existing program elements (e.g., “To what extent do you think edTPA is compatible with your program structure, student body, curricula, and mission?”) influenced such attitudes.

The second section asked interviewees to explain their actual implementation efforts (e.g., “How does your program and/or university support students for edTPA success?”). We specifically probed for how organizational factors may have played a role (see Research Question 1b), including resources (e.g., “How has your program/institution utilized fiscal and human resources to address edTPA”), top/mid-level leadership (e.g., “How have administrators reacted to edTPA?”, “Is there a ‘point-person’ for edTPA at your institution?”), and social networking (e.g., “How would you describe relationships across administrators/faculty/staff in your teacher preparation program? That is, are they collaborative, more autonomous, somewhere in-between?”). Because edTPA was meant to provide a framework for program redesign/inquiry, we also probed for what changes occurred because of edTPA (e.g., “How has edTPA implementation impacted your teaching practice and/or your teacher education program?”). After each interview, the first author member checked their interpretation with that of the interviewee. They then adjusted the protocol over time as new information came to light, such as the importance of edTPA coordinators and programmatic mission.

To highlight the voices of teacher candidates, focus groups (n = 6) were conducted by the first author halfway through candidates’ student teaching seminar course—the same semester they complete edTPA. This gave the opportunity to gauge their perceptions of edTPA during completion and how respective TPPs may have played a role. Each focus group lasted between 30 and 60 min. A semi-structured protocol served as a guide, which included questions about their perceptions (e.g., “What, if anything, do you think are the positive aspects of edTPA in preparing you to be a teacher? What about negative aspects?”), their instructors’ perceptions (e.g., “If you can, what do your instructors believe or say about the edTPA? To what extent have these beliefs impacted your views of the edTPA?”), and what challenges, if any, they faced during edTPA completion.

Finally, we collected emails, letters, agendas, minutes, progress reports, and internal records at each embedded TPP. These documents were either provided by interviewees or found via institutional websites, helping to assess policy tools, fiscal resources, faculty/staff support, and candidate expertise. They also served as a member check for prior interviews and focus groups conducted by the first author.

Data Analysis and Procedures

All data were transcribed and uploaded to ATLAS.ti, a computer software package. Data analysis was conducted by the first author. He used the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and coding suggestions of Saldaña (2016). He also used a version of grounded theory advocated by Charmaz (2006), which allows for the inclusion of preexisting theoretical frameworks (i.e., sensemaking) while further providing freedom to investigate an issue with limited research available (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Data analysis commenced in three different phases. First, inductive codes related to our conceptual framework were applied; 22 different codes were used. Broadly, they captured sensemaking perceptions/responses, organizational factors, and policy design. Initial definitions and decision rules for each code were compiled and revised based on emerging themes. Memos were also attached to specific data coded in ATLAS.ti.

Second, based on memos, initial codes were assessed to examine if they adequately captured the data and research questions. This process resulted in 10 additional codes applied. The “edTPA Coordinator” code captured any instance discussing these stakeholders and their performative functions. The “institutional compatibility” code captured the extent to which implementers felt edTPA was congruent with their TPP’s existing behaviors/values (i.e., organizational mission). The “changes” code captured what specific changes (good or bad) TPP implementers discussed as a result of edTPA. The “professionalization” and “deprofessionalization” codes captured whether implementers felt edTPA improved or hampered teacher education generally. The “challenges” code captured what implementation issues arose and what factors were involved. The “future of edTPA” helped track whether stakeholders believed the policy tool had staying power. The “other” code helped track data that may be important, however, did not have a specified theme. Overall, these additional codes helped to form the “good,” the “bad,” and the “ugly” as part of our discussion section.

Third, all coded instances were analyzed and a memo was made for each inductive/deductive code. These memos looked at all associated quotes and attached descriptors to more easily disaggregate data across states and embedded cases. Descriptors included state, TPP, role (administrator, faculty, staff, or student), and name (for interviewees only). All associated quotes across states/TPPs were systematically analyzed to find key differences and similarities across this intersection. A total of 1,700 individual pieces of data were coded by the first author in assembling these findings.

Limitations

Despite its comprehensiveness, there are several methodological limitations with this study. First, data collection feasibility limited how many states and TPPs could be studied to saturation. Second, because the case states are geographically close to each other, there could be conceivable differences in states on the coasts adopting similar policy designs (e.g, New York and California). Third, most data collection was centered on the interactions between TPP administrators, faculty, and staff (n = 69), not teacher candidates (n = 6). Fourth, given this study uses a sensemaking framework, we were more concerned about observing how collective/individual perceptions translated into edTPA as a tool for inquiry or compliance across TPPs. Thus, we did not measure whether “positive” sensemaking produced better scores on edTPA for teacher candidates. This will likely be a follow-up study.

Findings

In tracing stakeholders’ sensemaking of edTPA, our data confirms that policy design influenced them to either view edTPA as an inquiry-based or compliance-based tool. However, organizational factors further bifurcated this view, particularly institutional capacities and will. Finally, individual views of edTPA as a national policy tool for measuring teacher effectiveness became important. Together, such complexities in the policy sensemaking process produced three implementation responses discussed in our conceptual framework: (a) active use, (b) cosmetic compliance, and (c) active resistance (De Voto, 2019).

Our findings are organized as follows. Using our embedded TPPs, we first discuss Illinois’s edTPA implementation followed by Iowa’s. Each case state is broken down by the three policy levels discussed in our conceptual framework: policy design, organizational factors, and individuals. Where appropriate, we provide interview/focus group quotations from TPP administrators, faculty, staff, and candidates. We then briefly sum up each state’s implementation and what sensemaking factors contributed.

Note. This work is part of a larger study (De Voto, 2019). For a more detailed synopsis, please see the first author’s work.

Illinois

Within Illinois, our case TPPs generally implemented edTPA as an inquiry-based tool for programmatic improvement/redesign. Despite operating under a coercive design, all but one TPP (i.e., Jefferson) actively supported edTPA in this manner. We discuss what factors within each policy level played a role below.

Policy design

Although coercive policies tend to cultivate local resistance and merely satisfying the letter of the law (Berman, 1986), we surprisingly found such responses were limited to Jefferson. Subscribing to a social justice, urban mission, all but three stakeholders (n = 12) made sense of edTPA as a “gatekeeper” mechanism (similar to Ledwell & Oyler, 2016). This furthered their cosmetic compliance and active resistance toward the associated mandate. One faculty member’s comments are reflective: “It’s high stakes, and could be a potential gatekeeper in terms of [a teacher candidate’s] finances and schooling background—that’s what I find problematic.” On the contrary, by separating edTPA from its associated mandate, Lincoln, Ford, and Hamilton saw the assessment’s merits toward programmatic improvement/redesign, thus becoming active users. As one Ford faculty member shared,

If you told me today that it’s not consequential and we don’t have to do it, I would still use a great deal of the processes . . . probably all of it . . . it has helped us sort of focus our program in terms of what we need to emphasize.

Broadly, these opposing responses were also echoed by teacher candidates. Focus group data showed those TPPs who actively used edTPA as a tool for inquiry had candidates exhibiting similar sensemaking. In part, this was a matter of preparation, as Lincoln’s administrator discussed:

We have found that our candidate’s attitudes about it and especially their anxiety about it . . . is really less than what I hear described from many [other] places . . . because they feel prepared . . . faculty are not coming out and just saying negative things about it . . . so I think that is really important.

Meanwhile, lacking such preparation, candidates from those TPPs who resisted (i.e., Jefferson) saw edTPA and its associated mandate as a compliance-based tool:

We are getting taught to the test . . . rather than talking about things that could be beneficial for our career, you know? So that is essentially what [faculty] have had to do to ensure that we get the practice that we need, so that we can pass.

Consequently, we find how TPPs viewed Illinois’s coercive design was a function of their existing organizational behaviors and values (as Jones & McBeth, 2010, point out). Those who could adequately meet its demands (and had compatible missions) actively used edTPA, whereas those who did not actively resisted.

Organizational factors

Although the mandate did signal how Illinois TPPs should initially respond, we found most sensemaking became localized. Two key factors played a role: institutional capacities and compatibility. Capacities provided the ability to comply with edTPA whereas compatibility provided the organizational mission (i.e., behaviors/values) to do so. Together, they helped predict what approach TPPs took (i.e., inquiry- or compliance-based). Each factor and related subfactors are discussed below.

First, two institutional capacities influenced edTPA implementation most: leadership and coupling. At Lincoln, Hamilton, and Ford, top-level administrators (i.e., deans or associate deans) set the tone. As part of an overall organizational mission, they urged faculty and staff to look beyond the associated mandate and focus on its framework as a tool for inquiry, program improvement, and redesign. One Lincoln staff member’s accounting best illustrates their influence:

So in fall 2013, we laid out everything that edTPA could impact in teacher education . . . we started to systematically work our way through protocol development . . . to the point where we could then tell the programs, here’s what we’re doing, here are your options, let us know what you decide . . . But [edTPA] had movement because it wasn’t just me saying we need this. I was working with top-level leadership, all of whom were influential in teacher-ed and in the university to help make these things happen.

Alternatively, Jefferson’s administration did not support the associated mandate. According to one staff member,

It was an ideological response . . . I’m not giving them that, right? Like, we’re not going to use our resources just for edTPA. They did not want to say our institution supports this thing because they don’t believe in it.

In turn, organizational sensemaking was far more individualized, contributing to their cosmetic compliance and active resistance (“Every program is doing its own thing . . . it’s a mess.”).

We also found edTPA coordinators served as mid-level leaders, further influencing edTPA sensemaking across organizational strata. These individuals occupied this role in all three TPPs using edTPA for programmatic improvement. As part of this mid-level role, four key functions were observed: (a) conducting professional development; (b) creating tools; (c) fostering new, collaborative relationships; and (d) bridging policy misconceptions and resistance. One Hamilton faculty member’s discussion is demonstrative:

I’ve developed a lot of tools. I’ve mapped all the rubrics [for faculty] to where they should be introduced, developing and mastering through the sequences. I would then talk to the sequence leads. I’ve also written a lesson plan template that will cover everything that is needed for edTPA . . . I ran PD for our student teaching supervisors. And I ran PD for our adjunct faculty as well as seminars for the students to let them know what was going on, and then it was nice that I had the support of the dean . . .

Accordingly, most individuals approached edTPA as a tool for inquiry here, not compliance.

On the contrary, organizational coupling created or diminished opportunities for collective sensemaking to occur. Lincoln, Hamilton, and Ford were tightly coupled whereas Jefferson was loosely coupled. We found tight coupling was a function of proximal social networks. This enabled them to make sense of edTPA together, similarly doing so as a form of inquiry. One Hamilton faculty member’s discussion is revealing:

We are not very large so we have an opportunity to talk to each other . . . and if someone says this is what is on the horizon or what we have to prepare for, everyone says, okay, let’s do it . . . and edTPA is helping us foster such conversations.

Conversely, Jefferson’s loose coupling was a function of limited social networks. Individual programs therefore tended to make sense of edTPA differently, most of whom did so as a tool for compliance. One Jefferson administrator’s accounting is illustrative:

We didn’t have any of that kind of infrastructure, so people were barking and biting at everybody else to do things for edTPA . . . but there was no money . . . there was no responsibility allocated . . . and so [people] for the most part then had to kind of take the initiative on their own . . . and many fought back.

Second, we found preexisting structures at each institution influenced their compatibility (i.e., behavior/values) with edTPA, particularly (a) routines and (b) tools. Active users enacted important routines that supported opportunities for inquiry. Such routines were not the result of the associated mandate but rather to reflect on their professional selves. For example, Lincoln’s edTPA coordinator hosted a voluntary “data summit.” Faculty and staff got together to examine edTPA data and discuss how they could promote continuous program improvement. In contrast, active resistors like Jefferson did not exhibit such formalized routines. Faculty were subsequently left to do their own data analysis and learning of edTPA, often as a tool for compliance (e.g., “What I hate is the fact that it’s high stakes, so we do it out of necessity.”).

Meanwhile, active users created an array of tools to support collective understandings for edTPA implementation. For instance, Hamilton’s edTPA coordinator produced curriculum maps of where certain components of edTPA should be taught within the licensure sequence. Instructors were then able to match their courses with the new material. Much like routines, however, we did not find formalized tools present at Jefferson. We attributed both circumstances to the lack of a formal edTPA coordinator, whereby faculty and staff had to individually make sense of edTPA.

Individuals

Despite Lincoln, Hamilton, and Ford largely becoming active users, we found evidence of individual resistance, particularly toward the associated mandate. Over time, though, this resistance was mitigated by top-level administrators and edTPA coordinators, as one Lincoln faculty member attested to:

At the beginning, there was a lot of resistance across the board except for a couple key people in positions of power in the College of Ed. who were very much for it and . . . were becoming really frustrated with the resistance. I remember the “let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater” being said a lot . . . and I think as time has passed . . . people were feeling like they were kind of . . . being shut down purposefully. And so I think there isn’t . . . as much resistance [now] as there once was.

By focusing on edTPA as a framework for inquiry, leaders at these three institutions were able to thwart most resistance, maintaining their active use.

At the same time, Jefferson’s sensemaking was largely individual, not collective. Because organizational variables did not cultivate an programmatic mission toward edTPA, individual perceptions dictated their implementation; most administrators, faculty, and staff criticized both the associated mandate and assessment itself. For instance, they felt the edTPA mandate stripped them of their agency and local expertise. As one faculty member said, “We are teaching to the test. We have to because they have to answer those questions correctly. And that doesn’t necessarily mean they are doing any better in the classroom, but by god, they are answering those questions correctly.” Equally, they felt the assessment did not adequately reflect their existing program’s social justice, urban focus. As another faculty member shared:

There is a profound disconnect between how we socialize our students as critical educators promoting urban equity and social justice . . . and then using a standardized assessment that not only didn’t value those things . . . but actively fought against it.

Finally, they felt edTPA’s association with Pearson was just another neoliberal reform dismantling public education: “Probably the main inflammatory area for some faculty has been their dislike of Pearson and the cost, and feeling like it still takes resources that could be used in another way.” Taken together, this generally led to cosmetic compliance and active resistance.

Illinois summary

Broadly, we found TPP sensemaking of edTPA as a tool for inquiry/compliance was in response to organizational factors. Although the associated mandate did force compliance, Lincoln, Hamilton, and Ford had the necessary institutional capacities (i.e., leadership and coupling) and compatibility (i.e., routines and tools) to willingly support edTPA as an inquiry-based tool for programmatic improvement/redesign. Conversely, Jefferson did not. In the process, most actors individually made sense of edTPA as a form of accountability, cosmetically complying or actively resisting the associated mandate. These differences also reflected teacher candidate perceptions of edTPA. Candidates from Lincoln, Hamilton, and Ford tended to speak positively whereas candidates from Jefferson did not.

Iowa

Similar to Illinois, our case TPPs adopting edTPA (i.e., Roosevelt and Madison) generally did so as an inquiry-based tool. This response was afforded by their institutional capacities and compatibility. Unlike Illinois, however, two of our cases did not adopt edTPA; Adams withdrew while Johnson never did. These responses were afforded by the state’s voluntary policy design. Having an option, TPPs adopted what assessment made sense for their unique context. We discuss what factors within each policy level played a role below.

Policy design

As mentioned, Iowa allows individual TPPs to adopt one of three nationally normed assessments to be completed as part of their program—edTPA, PPAT, or Praxis II. Under this voluntary policy design, we found TPPs who wanted to adopt edTPA did so while those who did not chose another assessment. These decisions were either practical or philosophical. For example, Roosevelt and Madison had student populations from Illinois who intended to go back to their home state to teach. As one faculty member discussed, “We are using edTPA because of our student population. We just had to. We knew we weren’t going to continue to get those students [from Illinois] if we didn’t make an immediate change.” In this way, Illinois’s coercive policy design directly influenced both TPPs to adopt edTPA by proxy. On the contrary, Adams and Johnson had programs that were incompatible with edTPA, either initially or over time. Toward these ends, organizational variables became an important predictor.

Organizational factors

Much like Illinois, institutional capacities and compatibility influenced TPP sensemaking of edTPA. Notwithstanding, they also influenced whether TPPs continued adopting edTPA. For example, Roosevelt’s administration supported the use of a performance-based assessment. Likewise, they recognized substantial fiscal resources would need to be provided. In turn, faculty and staff had access to professional development and two edTPA coordinators. One administrator’s comments are revealing:

We were interested in a performance-based assessment . . . that was driving [edTPA] for our program . . . But I knew we needed this professional development and we also needed to allocate budget for that, and . . . we needed to have faculty members who really were responsible for preparing candidates during the edTPA process.

By providing the organizational resources needed to implement edTPA effectively, most faculty/staff across the TPP viewed the assessment as a tool for inquiry (e.g., “It’s just more realistic . . . so this is a game changer and this could actually make us a lot better.”). And over time, they continued to adopt it over other, less demanding assessments (i.e., PPAT and Praxis II).

Meanwhile, Adams lacked such top-level commitment for edTPA. This was largely due to attrition. Implementation thus rested on a few individuals outside the teaching program. Unable to enact a common set of values/behaviors, the TPP later withdrew. As one faculty member discussed,

When you have leadership that’s kind of shifting and then coming back in and then the next year you’ve got a different leader, that makes an impact . . . I don’t ever really remember a dean standing at a big faculty meeting saying rah-rah edTPA or boo . . . edTPA. And I think ultimately it still goes back to that lack of synergy and the leadership to start it, you know? Having that solid core group that could shepherd it through. I think that might have been one of the ultimate’s, too, that did away with it.

However, we also found fiscal resources became important. Initially, Adams had a grant that provided substantial professional development (i.e., TQP). Once the grant ended, though, there was not a coherent plan for its implementation. One faculty member’s accounting is illustrative:

When you understand that the [TQP] grant money is going to go away, it gets to be a little scary. I think that that was part of some of the doubt . . . what are we going to do when we don’t have this [resource] and who’s going to shoulder that? And I did not get the sense that that was being answered . . . let’s be frank here, budget plays a huge part in what happens at an institution, right?

In response, many faculty and staff resisted, believing adopting a less demanding assessment was more prudent.

Concerning compatibility, the decision to continue to adopt, eventually withdraw, or never adopt edTPA was either philosophical or practical. For instance, Adams not only lacked top-level leadership and fiscal resources, many faculty and staff did not philosophically support edTPA. This included its relationship with Pearson, the transition away from an in-house assessment system, and consuming too much of candidates’ time during student teaching. As one Adams faculty member discussed,

The ugliest pushbacks were just that Pearson was running teacher ed. by far, you know? And boy, once they pit-bulled that, they had earplugs . . . they closed every door they could. They didn’t want to hear edTPA . . . Another reason was they thought that it consumed too much of the student teacher’s time, energy, and focus while the people were student teaching . . . that it all became about getting this thing done [i.e., compliance] and not really truly embracing being a student teacher.

Conversely, Johnson never adopted the assessment because their alternative-route program structure conflicted, especially during student teaching (i.e., when candidates take edTPA). As one staff member said, “edTPA forced almost all the tasks to be completed during the first session placement, [which] felt very rushed and very condensed.” Instead, they preferred PPAT, which “allowed for that flexibility of pacing.”

Although we cannot confirm whether teacher candidates from TPPs who actively resisted (i.e., Adams) or never adopted (i.e., Johnson) edTPA in Iowa reflected such negative perceptions, we were able to examine those from TPPs actively using (i.e., Roosevelt and Madison). Similar to most in Illinois, these candidates spoke quite positively of their edTPA experience. They made sense of edTPA as a professionalization tool, appreciating its inquiry-based approach. One Roosevelt student’s comments are illustrative:

I think it’s nice to have an application based test . . . I mean, its rigorous . . . it’s time consuming . . . but not nearly as bad as I thought it would be . . . just because [Roosevelt] figured out how to prepare us and do it step-by-step . . . it’s very reflective.

Individuals

Because implementing edTPA became voluntary, most interviewees were not actively resistant, and cosmetic compliance did not transpire. We find this is largely because organizational resistance triggered its subsequent withdrawal (e.g., Adams), or not being initially adopted. Even so, some individuals continued to express such negative perceptions. Past implementation problems and/or philosophical differences led to a belief that edTPA was bad for the profession generally (i.e., a deprofessionalization tool). These views mirrored many Jefferson faculty/staff in Illinois who saw edTPA as a compliance-based tool. One Adams faculty member’s perceptions are demonstrative:

It’s just another tinker with a system that ultimately is just causing more busy work . . . more headaches and ultimately does nothing to improve the profession. If we’re talking about producing good teachers . . . this has absolutely nothing to do with producing good teachers. I mean . . . it doesn’t work that way . . . especially edTPA because it’s summative. All the work to create a teacher has already been done and now edTPA comes in and decides whether it’s a good one or not. For the most part . . . I wanted to run . . . not because it would be terrible for us . . . but it’s just one more goddamn thing and why would we do that?

In contrast, active users like Roosevelt and Madison generally made sense of edTPA as an inquiry-based tool for program improvement/redesign. This, in part, was due to organizational variables like leadership and fiscal support, helping to foster a compatible set of behaviors/values. However, it was also because they initially believed the assessment was a professionalization tool. As Madison’s edTPA coordinator discussed:

My understanding of the edTPA is that it is designed to support what goes on in teacher education programs by focusing on a set of practices and activities and collection of evidence that would help teacher preparation programs prepare students to, in essence, be able to execute the tasks associated with planning instruction, delivering instruction, and engaging in student assessment . . . those three focal areas . . . I really think it’s going to make our program better . . . I am not kidding when I say it. I actually tried to tone that down—that excitement is kind of bubbling out of me right now.

Consequently, existing behaviors and values dictated how TPPs made sense of and implemented edTPA.

Iowa summary

Analogous to Illinois, TPP sensemaking of edTPA as a tool for inquiry/compliance was relative to specific organizational factors (e.g., leadership and fiscal support). However, we found pragmatism and whether individuals felt edTPA strengthened teacher education mattered. This was afforded because the state did not mandate edTPA. On one hand, programmatic structure (e.g., pacing) and student demographics (e.g., those coming from Illinois) influenced whether TPPs initially adopted edTPA. On the other hand, whether the assessment was compatible with their view of teacher professionalization was relevant. In TPPs where the majority felt edTPA was philosophically compatible, the assessment became an opportunity for program improvement/redesign. Meanwhile, those who did not eventually withdrew or never adopted.

Discussion

In tracing stakeholders’ (i.e., TPP administrators, faculty, staff, and candidates) diverse sensemaking of edTPA, our data suggest that policy design influenced them to either view edTPA as an inquiry-based or compliance-based tool. Still, organizational factors further bifurcated this view, particularly due to variations in institutional leadership (i.e., top/middle), mission (i.e., behaviors/values), identity (e.g., student demographics/programmatic structure), fiscal resources, coupling, routines, and tools. Furthermore, individual views of edTPA as a tool for measuring teacher effectiveness became important. Toward these ends, we find complexities in the policy sensemaking process have produced many perceived promises and pitfalls for edTPA as a national teaching assessment and support system—what we term the “good,” the “bad,” and the “ugly.” This section will unpack each of these deductive terms, providing a holistic picture of edTPA policy sensemaking and subsequent implementation.

The Good

If edTPA is a policy lever designed to build capacity and improve teacher education (i.e., inquiry), then a measurement of its “goodness” (or effectiveness) would be how it has had a perceived positive impact on TPPs. Our data suggest that despite different policy designs, many stakeholders across Illinois and Iowa perceive edTPA as having a positive influence on their programs and teacher education generally. This is particularly true when TPPs have provided the necessary capacities for implementation (i.e., active use). Four key promises were found.

First, we find edTPA is fostering cross-communication/collaboration across individual programs and between universities more broadly. In other words, TPPs are making their practice public in an effort to improve implementation across contexts. Second, we find edTPA is institutionalizing continuous improvement/reflection across TPPs. In particular, TPPs are using score data to make informed decisions, redesigning their programs around inputs, and seeking accreditation from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like CAEP. Third, edTPA is providing a systematic foundation around what the field deems to be important. This includes academic language, teaching pedagogy, differentiation, and assessment. Fourth, we find edTPA is cultivating external legitimacy—something the profession has often lacked (Cohen et al., 2020). On one hand, it is helping to standardize what good teaching is within programs and across states. On the other hand, multiple interviewees commented that school leaders are impressed by the demonstrable evidence candiates those taking edTPA display.

The Bad

Similar to “goodness,” edTPA’s “badness” is a measure of how it has had a perceived negative impact on TPPs. Toward these ends, we found incompatibility between policy design and/or organizational factors resulted in two sets of issues: (a) implementation challenges and (b) philosophical challenges. We discuss each in turn.

Concerning implementation challenges, two kinds were found: (a) taking time away from important aspects of the program (i.e., narrowing curriculum) and (b) student teaching. These challenges were less connected to policy design and more so connected to a TPP’s capacities and will to support edTPA. For example, TPPs who lacked top-level leadership (e.g., Jefferson and Adams) also lacked the fiscal and human supports (e.g., edTPA coordinators) needed to implement edTPA as a tool for inquiry. In the process, some programs collectively felt the policy tool was narrowing their curriculum via compliance (particularly when operating under a coercive design). Alternatively, the increased demands of edTPA during student teaching produced challenges. Besides teacher candidate stress (commonly discussed across the literature), TPPs dealt with contentious university-district partnerships in both states. These included principals and cooperating teachers unwilling to support edTPA candidates, as well as TPPs no longer partnering with some districts.

Concerning philosophical challenges, three kinds were found: (a) loss of internal control, (b) privatization of teacher education, and (c) limitations on social justice. Unlike implementation challenges, these challenges were a byproduct of both policy design and how TPPs perceived candidates should be prepared and measured. For those who actively resisted edTPA, the assessment became a deprofessionalization tool. These individuals described a loss of internal control. By making edTPA a summative assessment, they believed their teaching expertise and agency were diminished. This was especially true under a coercive design when institutional capacities were limited (e.g., Jefferson).

Second, edTPA’s partnership with Pearson as a third-party, private operator received much criticism. Although this criticism was particularly evident in our actively resistant TPPs (i.e., Jefferson and Adams), many individuals across actively using TPPs shared similar feelings. In part, this harkens back to Labaree’s (1997) discussion of education as a public or private good; many feel teacher professionalization is now an extension of neoliberalism. So whether edTPA is a “good” assessment becomes irrelevant in their view.

Third, we find there may be a mismatch between social justice, urban TPPs, and the normative values of edTPA. Although the assessment does support such pedagogy (Sato, 2014), it is not emphasized to the extent some programs (e.g., Jefferson) feel is required. In this way, a philosophical conundrum may be a core reason behind edTPA’s active resistance, regardless of what design TPPs operate under.

Overall, these implementation and philosophical challenges illustrate that some TPP behaviors and values may not align with edTPA. Jefferson serves as a cautionary tale. We found limited capacities constrained their behaviors to adequately meet the assessment and associated mandate. Equally, compatibility issues resulted from opposing value structures. These challenges are exacerbated under a coercive design because TPPs cannot withdraw. However, we also find some Iowa TPPs are adopting edTPA in response to Illinois’s coercive design (i.e., by proxy). Given such designs exist throughout the continental United States, pragmatism rather than inquiry may be the root of edTPA’s adoption for TPPs geographically adjacent.

The Ugly

Collectively, these diverse perspectives illustrate an “ugly” situation for edTPA and teacher education. We find those who firmly believe edTPA is professionalizing the field, affording a framework for program improvement/redesign. However, we also find those who firmly believe edTPA is deprofessionalizing the field, providing an additional accountability mechanism for programs and candidates alike. So while edTPA has become “the first nationally available, educator-designed support and assessment system for teachers entering the profession” (SCALE, 2015, p. 4), it has also illustrated a schism. We argue this schism is related to TPP capacities and will to meet these varying edTPA policies. It is also related to enduring differences regarding what “good” teaching is and how best to measure it.

Seen from this view, when TPPs believe edTPA does align with their organizational behaviors and values, their capacities and will to meet its associated policies are high. edTPA thus becomes a tool for inquiry, just as its developers intended. Alternatively, when TPPs do not believe their organizational behaviors and values align, their capacities and will to meet edTPA associated policies are low. edTPA thus becomes a tool for compliance, undermining what good outcomes the assessment system affords. Making the “goodness” of edTPA work across multiple contexts with varying sensemaking subsequently becomes difficult.

Conclusion

Like all policies, edTPA policies are currently in flux. At the time of this writing, Illinois is reconsidering its associated policy, and recently lowered edTPA cut scores. Two bills are being argued: one abolishes edTPA entirely and the other prohibits videotaping lessons during student teaching. Regardless of policy changes, we submit the contribution of this work still stands. In highlighting diverse, multifaceted perspectives across/within TPPs and states, we show how policy design and organizational factors have contributed to perceived promises and pitfalls for edTPA as a national performance-based assessment system. On one hand, we find Illinois’s coercive design has placed TPPs under pressure to implement a complex assessment and, for some (e.g., Jefferson), a struggle due to incompatible behaviors/values. We further find that while Iowa’s voluntary design has created a more reciprocal relationship, it still has been influenced by Illinois’s mandate. On the other hand, we find variations in institutional leadership, mission, identity, coupling, routines, and tools are important organizational factors influencing capacity and overall will. Therefore, this intersection becomes a key element in predicting whether TPPs actively resist, cosmetically comply, or actively use edTPA. It also helps in predicting whether edTPA becomes a tool for inquiry or compliance.

Within a policy environment that seeks greater rigor and accountability, edTPA offers legitimacy, accountability, and professionalism. Notwithstanding, if edTPA is to succeed across states and TPPs, the complexities of both policy design and local implementation processes need to be further considered. To this end, our study provides an alternative answer to Richmond et al. (2019) question of “how do we develop assessments that are informative, scalable, and accepted by the majority of experts in the field?” (p. 86). Future research should continue to examine how policy design and local complexities impact edTPA implementation, and which policy is most effective in having a positive impact on the field.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Craig De Voto

Jessica J. Gottlieb

Author Biographies

Craig De Voto, PhD, is a visiting research assistant professor in the Learning Sciences Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He examines the implementation of large-scale federal and state policies in several different areas, including edTPA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), desegregation, and standards-based reform. He also studies innovative approaches in preparing urban school leaders.

Jennifer D. Olson, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor in Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education at University of Illinois at Chicago. Her current research interests include urban teacher professional learning focused on culturally sustaining pedagogy and effective urban pedagogy practices.

Jessica J. Gottlieb, PhD, is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Texas Tech University. Her work focuses on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education policy, teacher education, and policy design, with an eye toward understanding how policy can expand access to high quality learning experiences for all students.

References

Adkins

Spesia

Snakenborg

(2015, July 22). Rebuttal to Dover et al. Teachers College Record. www.tcrecord.org

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2020). Participation map. http://edtpa.aacte.org

Banner

Donnelly

Ryder

(2012). Policy networks and boundary objects: Enacting curriculum reform in the absence of consensus. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5), 577–598.

Bastian

K. C.

Henry

G. T.

Pan

Lys

(2016). Teacher candidate performance assessments: Local scoring and implications for teacher preparation program improvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 1–12.

Bastian

K. C.

Lys

(2018). Initial findings from edTPA implementation in North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Education Policy Initiative at Carolina. http://publicpolicy.unc.edu/epic-home

Berman

(1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally induced reform. In Kirp

D. L.

Jensense

D. N.

(Eds.), School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education (pp. 22–45). The Falmer Press.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

Coburn

C. E.

(2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.

Coburn

C. E.

(2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.

10.

Coburn

C. E.

Russell

J. L.

(2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

11.

Cochran-Smith

(2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. Teachers College Press.

12.

Cohen

Hutt

Berlin

R. L.

Mathews

H. M.

McGraw

J. P.

Gottlieb

(2020). Sense making and professional identity in the implementation of edTPA. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 9–23.

13.

Danielson

(2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching, 2nd edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

14.

De Voto

. (2019). Sensemaking and policy implementation of edTPA: The good, the bad, and the ugly [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Illinois at Chicago.

15.

De Voto

Thomas

M. K

. (2020). Cultural sensemaking and the implementation of edTPA technological tools: Lessons for the field. Educational Technology Research and Development.

16.

Dolowitz

D. P.

Marsh

(2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance, 13, 5–24.

17.

Dover

A. G.

(2018). Your compliance will not protect you: Agency and accountability in urban teacher preparation. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918795020

18.

Dover

A. G.

Schultz

B. D.

(2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. The Educational Forum, 80(1), 95–106.

19.

Dover

A. G.

Schultz

B. D.

Smith

Duggan

T. J.

(2015, September). Embracing the controversy: edTPA, corporate influence, and the cooptation of teacher education. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=18109

20.

Elmore

R. F.

(1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.

21.

Firestone

W. A.

(1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151–164.

22.

Gitomer

D. H.

Martínez

J. F.

Battey

Hyland

N. E.

(2019). Assessing the assessment: Evidence of reliability and validity in the edTPA. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219890608

23.

Glaser

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

24.

Goldhaber

Cowan

Theobald

(2017). Evaluating prospective teachers: Testing the predictive validity of the edTPA. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 377–393.

25.

Greenblatt

O’Hara

K. E.

(2015). Buyer beware: Lessons learned from edTPA implementation in New York State. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(2), 57–67.

26.

Gurl

T. J.

Caraballo

Grey

Gunn

J. H.

Gerwin

Bembenutty

(2016). Policy, professionalization, privatization, and performance assessment: Affordances and constraints for teacher education programs. Springer.

27.

Henning

Dover

A. G.

Dotson

E. K.

Agarwal-Rangnath

(2018). Storying teacher education policy: Critical counternarratives of curricular, pedagogical, and activist responses to state-mandated teacher performance assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(26). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2790

28.

Henning

Dover

A. G.

Dotson

E. K.

Agarwal-Rangath

Clayton

C. D.

Donovan

M. K.

. . . Dunn

A. H.

(2018). Navigating the contested terrain of teacher education policy and practice: Authors respond to SCALE. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(31). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3745

29.

Hopkins

Spillane

J. P.

Jakopovic

Heaton

R. M.

(2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.

30.

Hutt

E. L.

Gottlieb

Cohen

J. J.

(2018). Diffusion in a vacuum: edTPA, legitimacy, and the rhetoric of teacher professionalization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 52–61.

31.

Jones

M. D.

McBeth

M. K.

(2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353.

32.

Kissau

Hart

L. C.

Algozzine

(2019). Investigating the impact of edTPA professional development on classroom practice and student teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 70, 102–114.

33.

Labaree

D. F.

(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.

34.

Lalley

J. P.

(2016). Reliability and validity of edTPA. In Carter

J. H.

Lochte

H. A.

(Eds.), Teacher performance assessment and accountability reforms: The impacts of edTPA on teaching and schools (pp. 47-78). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Ledwell

Oyler

(2016). Unstandardized responses to a “standardized” test: The edTPA as gatekeeper and curriculum change agent. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(2), 120–134.

36.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.

37.

Olson

J. D.

Rao

A. B.

(2017). Adopting the edTPA as a high-stakes assessment: Resistance, advocacy, and reflection in Illinois. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(4), 377–402.

38.

Peck

C. A.

Gallucci

Sloan

(2010). Negotiating implementation of high-stakes performance assessment policies in teacher education: From compliance to inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 451–463.

39.

Peck

C. A.

Gallucci

Sloan

Lippincott

(2009). Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: A socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review, 4, 16–25.

40.

Peck

C. A.

Singer-Gabella

Sloan

Lin

(2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8–30.

41.

Price

T. A.

(2016). Curricular reflections in the USA: Teaching teachers the edTPA. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3(1), 377–386.

42.

Rainey

H. G.

Bozeman

(2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470.

43.

Ratner

A. R.

Kolman

J. S.

(2016). Breakers, benders, and obeyers: Inquiring into teacher educators’ mediation of edTPA. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(35). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2112

44.

Richmond

Salazar

M. D. C.

Jones

(2019). Assessment and the future of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70, 86–89.

45.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers: 3E. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

46.

Sato

(2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421–434.

47.

Sherer

J. Z.

Spillane

J. P.

(2011). Constancy and change in school work practice: Exploring the role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 13(3), 611–657.

48.

Sloan

(2013). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Implementation of a teaching performance measure. The New Educator, 9(1), 29–53.

49.

Spillane

J. P.

Miele

D. B.

(2007). Evidence in practice: A framing of the terrain. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 46–73.

50.

Spillane

J. P.

Parise

L. M.

Sherer

J. Z.

(2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.

51.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Gomez

L. M.

(2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In Honig

M. I.

(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation. State University of New York Press.

52.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.

53.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2015). Educative assessment & meaningful support: 2014 edTPA administrative report. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=2183&ref=edtpa

54.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2018). Making good choices: Candidate support resource. https://www.edtpa.com/Content/Docs/edTPAMGC.pdf

55.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2019). Affirming the validity and reliability of edTPA: A response authored by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) and Pearson. http://edtpa.aacte.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Affirming-Validity-and-Reliability-of-edTPA.pdf

56.

Weatherley

Lipsky

(1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171–197.

57.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). SAGE.

58.

Weiss

C. H.

(1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In Callahan

Jennings

(Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). Plenum Press.

59.

Whittaker

Pecheone

R. L.

Stansbury

(2018). Fulfilling our educative mission: A response to edTPA critique. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(30). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1171719

60.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.