1. Remediation of Failing Candidates UC San Diego, Education Studies Bobbie Allen Chris Halter Rachel Millstone

2. 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

3. PACT Passing Standard Candidates 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).

4. 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.

5. Case Study #1 Not making adequate progress Directed to complete a second year of internship/student teaching and not attempt the T.E.

6. 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.

7. Case Study #3 Candidate failed teaching event by multiple scorers. Planning2,2,22,2,22,2,2 Instruction2,12,12,1 Assessment2,22,12,1 Reflection2,12,11,1 Academic1,11,11,1 Language

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. 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) Planning3,3,2 Instruction2,2 Assessment2,3 Reflection3,2 Academic Language2,2

14. Case #4 Candidate was Deaf; completed the Bilingual Math PACT with accommodations. Deadlines were extended for the written portion of the PACT.

15. Questions? Bobbie Allenbmallen@ucsd.edubmallen@ucsd.edu Chris Halterchalter@ucsd.educhalter@ucsd.edu Rachel Millstonermillstone@ucsd.edu