1 S TATE C ONTEXT FOR I SSUES OF T EACHER P REPARATION A CCOUNTABILITY L OUISIANA J EANNE M. B URNS,...
-
Upload
essence-eldridge -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 S TATE C ONTEXT FOR I SSUES OF T EACHER P REPARATION A CCOUNTABILITY L OUISIANA J EANNE M. B URNS,...
1
STATE CONTEXT FOR ISSUES OF TEACHER PREPARATION ACCOUNTABILITY
LOUISIANAJEANNE M. BURNS, PH.D.
LOUISIANA BOARD OF REGENTSAPRIL 7, 2015
LOUISIANA IS UNIQUEUNIVERSITIES WANT THE PUBLIC TO HAVE ACCESS TO RELEVANT DATA ABOUT THEIR
PROGRAMS
2
http://www.regents.la.gov/teacherprepdashboard
Teacher Preparation Data Dashboard
• Basic Program Information• Candidate Selection Profile• Knowledge and Skills for Teaching of
Completers• Program Productivity and Alignment
to State Needs• Performance as Classroom
Teachers
(2020 Key Effectiveness Indicators developed by Teacher Preparation Analytics)
CURRENT STATUS OFTEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
3
• 100% of Louisiana’s public and private universities are nationally accredited by NCATE/TEAC/CAEP
• 100% passage rate on state licensure exams with exception of one university that has 99%
• Only approx. 3.5% of undergraduates and 3.5% of alternate completers scored in the Ineffective range on the State Teacher Evaluation System for all teachers in Louisiana
• Universities have access tovalue-added data and drill-down data for completers whoare first and second year teachers
TEACHER PREPARATION TRANSFORMATION 1.0 (1999-2011)&
TEACHER PREPARATION TRANSFORMATION 2.0 (2011-PRESENT)
4
http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/teacher-preparation-transformation-10-and-20/
Transformation 1.0
Blue Ribbon Commission
New Certification & Approval Policies
Redesign & Review by National Experts
Transformation 2.0
BoR Advisory Council
College- and Career-Ready Standards
Clinical Experiences
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF EDUCATION DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR
CONSTRUCTING OR REVISING A TPP EVALUATION SYSTEM FRAMEWORK
5
http://naeducation.org/NAED_080456.htm
Louisiana’s Answers to the SevenFramework Questions
(Pages79-97)
6
Question 1:What is the primary purpose of TPP
evaluation system?
Transformation 1.0• Hold universities
accountable for aggressive recruitment, preparation, support, & retention of quality teachers who produce higher achieving K-12 students
Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed)• Prepare new teachers
whose student demonstrate growth in learning for success in college and careers
(Meeting district workforce needs is also being discussed)
7
Question 2:What aspects of teacher preparation
matter the most?
Transformation 1.0• Completers pass licensure
exams• Universities produce more
certified teachers• Universities produce more
teachers in State teacher shortage areas
• K-12 students demonstrate growth in learning
• Public perception
Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed)
• Programs & districts have in-depth collaboration to provide relevant clinical experiences
• Programs connect content, theory, pedagogy, & practice and address college and career-ready standards
• Programs produce teachers to meet district teacher needs
8
Question 3:What sources of evidence will provide the most
accurate and useful information about the aspects of teacher preparation that are of primary interest?
Transformation 1.0• Passage rates on licensure
exams• Certified teachers
completing programs• Completers in State teacher
shortage areas • Ratings of completers on
surveys• Growth in student learning
Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed)
• Performance of new teachers and their students - Student Outcomes and Teacher Professional Practice
• Completers that meet district workforce needs
• Program and district partnerships (measure not yet determined)
9
Question 4:How will the measures be analyzed and combined
to make a judgment about program quality?
Transformation 1.0(2002-2005)
System suspended after Hurricane Katrina due to need to create new baselines.
Teacher Preparation Performance Score =[Institutional Index (Praxis & Survey) + Quantity Index]/2
http://regents.louisiana.gov/teacher-preparation-accountability-system/
10
Question 4 (Cont’d.):Transformation 1.0
(2006-2011)
• Value-Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model (Developed by Dr. George Noell – Louisiana State University)
• Levels of Effectiveness based upon value-added scores for university program completers during the first and second years of teaching
New teachers more effective than experienced teachersNew teachers similar to experienced teachers
New teachers comparable to other new teachersNew teachers less effective than other new teachersNew teachers significantly less effective than other new teachers
http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/value-added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-model
11
Question 4 (Cont’d.):Transformation 2.0
(2011-Future)
• Universities adopted the value-added model developed by Dr. George Noell for the State Teacher Evaluation System for all teachers in Louisiana and suspended the use of the value-added model developed for higher education
• Value-added scores based upon the state system were reported to the public for teacher preparation programs
• The State is currently identifying how multiple measures can be used to evaluate teacher preparation programs in the future.
http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/value-added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-model (See Year Eight Report)
12
Question 5:What are the intended and potentially unintended
consequences of the evaluation system for TPPs and education more broadly?
Transformation 1.0Intended Consequences:• 2002-2005 Universities received labels (i.e., Exemplary, High
Performing, Satisfactory, At-Risk, and Low Performing) (Note: Exemplary & High Performing received monetary rewards; At-Risk & Low Performing entered corrective action and required to improve in specific time period or lose approval)• 2006-2010 Universities entered into Programmatic
Intervention if value-added scores fell at the lowest 2 levels and required to improve in specific time periods
• Programs improved and student learning improved
13
Question 5:What are the intended and potentially unintended
consequences of the evaluation system for TPPs and education more broadly?
Transformation 1.0 (Cont’d.)Unintended Consequences:• Budget cuts resulted in loss of State funds for rewards and support• The need for evaluation of private providers for teacher preparation
has surfaced• Changes in value-added models, new K-12 teacher evaluation system, changing K-12 assessments, etc. have delayed the final development and implementation of a revised system
Transformation 2.0: To be determined
14
Question 6:How will transparency be achieved? What steps
will be taken to help users understand how to interpret the results and use them appropriately?
Transformation 1.0• Teacher preparation results were first shared with individual
campus heads, deans, and public relations personnel to ensure that campuses understood the meaning of the results
• Results were officially made available to the public on the Board of Regents web site after being formally presented to members of the board
• Results were presented to members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Blue Ribbon Commission for Educational Excellence, and other groups
Transformation 2.0: To be determined
15
Question 7:How will the evaluation system be monitored?
Transformation 1.0• With input from the campuses, public, and schools/districts,
Louisiana’s Blue Ribbon Commission monitored the implementation of the accountability systems for teacher preparation, developed recommendations, and presented the recommendations to the Board of Regents and Boards of Elementary and Secondary Education at joint meetings with both boards present. The two boards acted on the recommendations when appropriate.
Transformation 2.0: To be determined
WHY TEACHER PREPARATION MATTERSIN LOUISIANA
16
http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/