From InTASC Standards to Evidence You Can Actually See

The InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards provide educator preparation programs (EPPs) with a foundation for defining effective teaching. They describe the knowledge, skills, and professional responsibilities that teacher candidates are expected to develop as they prepare to enter the classroom.

But an important difference exists between understanding a teaching standard and recognizing it in action. During a clinical observation, a university supervisor may have only 30 or 45 minutes to determine how well a candidate is demonstrating multiple teaching standards simultaneously.

Consider InTASC Standard 3: Learning Environments

InTASC Standard 3 addresses learning environments that support individual and collaborative learning, positive social interaction, active engagement, and student motivation (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2013).

Consider a teacher candidate leading a small-group activity in which students work together to solve a problem. An observer might notice that students are seated in groups, discussing the assignment, and sharing materials. But does that provide sufficient evidence of the professional practices embedded in Standard 3?

The observer needs to look more closely. Are students building on one another's ideas? Are they taking responsibility for their contributions? How does the candidate respond when a student struggles to participate?

These details help the observer move beyond identifying a classroom activity to recognizing the professional practices taking place within it. But who decides which details are essential to the teaching standard and which are not?

Seeing an Activity Isn't the Same as Recognizing a Practice

Imagine two university supervisors observing the same lesson. One focuses on the candidate's classroom organization and ability to keep students on task. The other pays closer attention to how students interact, explain their thinking, and participate in learning.

Neither perspective is necessarily wrong. But the supervisors may leave with different impressions and subsequent ratings of how effectively the candidate demonstrated Standard 3.

In their examination of classroom observation instruments, Klette and Blikstad-Balas (2018) found that these tools can help observers identify and analyze specific teaching practices, but they can also limit what observers notice by directing attention toward particular aspects of instruction. The authors emphasized the value of a shared vocabulary for describing classroom practice. For EPPs, this raises an important question: Do our supervisors share a clear understanding of the classroom evidence that connects observations to professional standards?

Connecting Standards to Practice

EPPs invest considerable time aligning assessments, clinical experiences, and evaluation instruments with professional teaching standards. But does that alignment extend to the evidence collected during observations?

Do supervisors recognize the same indicators of effective practice? Can candidates see how their instructional decisions connect to the standards? Does observation evidence provide a useful foundation for feedback and professional growth?

These questions are central to Evidence-First™, which emphasizes recognizing observable classroom evidence and connecting it to professional expectations before reaching evaluative conclusions.

Evidence-First doesn't replace InTASC or an EPP's existing assessment framework. Instead, it helps strengthen the connection between what professional standards describe and what observers actually see and hear.

InTASC standards tell us what effective teaching should accomplish. Classroom evidence helps us understand how candidates are putting those expectations into practice.

References

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558115

Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117703228