The commission adopted the proposed Preparation Program Preconditions, Program Standards and Teaching Performance Expectations for the PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Credential and approved the language as new regulations to create Title 5 regulations sections.

Clinical practice: Concerns have been expressed about a candidate’s ability to implement the required 600 hours of clinical practice, particularly for workforce members who are employed in early childhood programs while trying to complete their degree and teacher preparation program. Several options are available to address these concerns including the provision in the proposed PK-3 ECE Specialist Credential regulations for granting credit for prior work experience. Providing credit for supervised clinical practice experiences in workplace settings toward the PK-3 Credential will allow candidates to “earn while they learn.”

Clinical supervision: A modification to the standards clarifies that any LEA-based supervisor of PK-3 candidates in the classroom setting must hold either a Multiple Subject/PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Credential, or a Child Development Permit at the Master Teacher level if the clinical site was in a preschool setting.

Literacy: Effective Literacy Instruction for PK-3 Settings has been added to the program standards for the PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Credential.

Mathematics: Mounting evidence indicates that young children’s mathematical knowledge is critical to later academic achievement and that opportunities to learn math can help children develop both social and academic skills. Emphasizing mathematic instruction in PK-3 is a critical first step in shaping mathematical success in subsequent years.

Commissioners modified existing institutional approval process to require potential institutions to provide essential background information to the commission earlier in the approval process.

To this end, Initial Program Preconditions, which are currently in Stage III, are more appropriately moved to Stage II. Additionally, eligibility requirements were also moved up to Stage II as the Eligibility Requirements are similar to the General Preconditions. Additionally, all faculty and instructional personnel who regularly teach one or more courses in an educator preparation program must actively participate in the public school system at least once every three years. Moving the Initial Program Preconditions, General Precondition, and the program-specific preconditions to Stage II will allow commissioners to make an earlier determination on the institution’s infrastructure, support and oversight for the proposed programs.

The PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Program Preconditions, Program Standards, and TPEs are organized into a single handbook for reference by programs and candidates. The handbook provides all of the required components of preparation for the PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction credential that must be addressed by program sponsors wanting to offer preparation for this credential.

Program Preconditions: Program Preconditions are requirements established in statute, regulation or by Commission policy that must be met in order for a program to be accredited by the Commission. Program preconditions are compliance-oriented and reviewed by staff to assure that programs are meeting specific requirements.

Program Standards: Program Standards address aspects of program quality and effectiveness that apply to each type of educator preparation program offered by a program sponsor. Program standards contain statements describing the nature and purpose of each standard and language that details the requirements that all approved programs must meet.

Teaching Performance Expectations: Teaching Performance Expectations comprise the body of knowledge, skills, and abilities that beginning teachers are expected to learn in approved teacher preparation programs in California. Beginning teachers are required to demonstrate their knowledge of the Teaching Performance Expectations by successfully completing coursework, engaging in clinical practice, and passing a Teaching Performance Assessment. Beginning teachers must meet these requirements prior to being recommended for a preliminary teaching credential in California.

The commission’s Assignment Monitoring Program ensures that educators hold the appropriate credential(s) for their teaching assignments pursuant to Education Code. With the passage of AB 1219, all California’s public Local Educational Agencies must conduct educator assignment monitoring on an annual basis through the California Statewide Assignment Accountability System. CalSAAS is a partially automated system which works by comparing educator assignment data reported by districts and counties in the California Pupil Achievement Data System and the educator credential data held by the commission. CalSAAS is also a key component to CDE’s reporting on teacher assignments, of which misassignment is only one piece of a more comprehensive picture of educator quality required by federal law.

Through statewide participation in the assignment monitoring process, CalSAAS has produced annual data related to certificated educator assignments statewide. The latest report provides the results of the 2020-21 monitoring cycle, including the prevalence of misassignments.

The greatest number of misassignments are in general education courses (55 percent), followed by English language development (18 percent), SPED (10 percent), and career tech (12 percent). In the high school and middle school settings, the misassignments are greatest in elective classes (18 percent) followed by sciences (12 percent), English (12 percent), PE (11 percent), math (11 percent), and social sciences (10 percent).

The commission reviewed and ultimately approved a passing standard for the California Education Specialist edTPA performance assessment.

A group of subject area experts and educators were convened into a panel that looked at the content of actual candidate responses to determine which responses demonstrate the expected level at which candidates should perform. When the final panel score recommendation is determined, an additional modification is sometimes made to that score before it is presented to the commission for potential adoption. This modification is the determination and potential application of an adjustment known as the standard error measurement.

The standard error measurement takes into consideration the fact that an assessment represents one single point in time when a candidate’s knowledge, skills and abilities are measured. The score obtained on that day may or may not be fully reflective of the candidate’s true knowledge, skills and abilities.

For example, if a candidate were to retake the test on multiple occasions, the candidate might obtain several different scores. Scores are influenced by many factors, including, for example, the candidate’s health on a particular day, the candidate’s frame of mind, the point in the program at which the candidate takes the assessment, difference in the ratings given by the assessors, and other such factors that may have an influence on the score received on that assessment on that day. The candidate’s “true” score that most accurately reflects the candidate’s full set of knowledge, skills and abilities may lie somewhere within that total range of scores, and not just in one score obtained on one date in time.

In addition, a single score could also potentially represent a “false negative” (i.e., the candidate did have sufficient knowledge, skills and abilities but the actual score did not closely enough represent the candidate’s true abilities) or a “false positive” (i.e., the candidate did not actually have sufficient knowledge, skills and abilities but was able to earn a higher score than otherwise warranted).

Finally, candidates were not required to achieve a passing score in the field test, so these scores may not represent their best efforts. For these reasons, an adjustment for this standard error measurement may sometimes be made to address these factors.

Based on the multiple variables of test reliability, the commission established the passing standard for initial implementation at 40 with the application of a -2.0 standard error measurement, making the actual initial passing score 37. Additionally, the commission will require the assessment sponsor to collect additional data during this first year of implementation, hold a new standard setting study in spring 2023, and submit an updated recommended passing standard to CTC staff in time to present to the commission for action during their June 2023 meeting.

The commission always retains the option of adjusting the passing score for the first operational year if the new standard setting study and impact data indicate a need.