Broad-based empirical outcomes assessment is an increasingly evident part of governmental services and this trend is particularly apparent in education. The clearest manifestation of this trend in education has been the advent of high-stakes broad-based testing and accountability programs in K-12 education. Although this assessment regime has not yet been used to assess the efficacy of teacher preparation programs, the data management capacity and statistical technology is now emerging to make this possible. This article presents data from the 1st year of a pilot study examining the methodological and practical issues involved in implementing a value-added assessment of teacher preparation based on a massive multivariate longitudinal database. The pilot data are discussed in relation to the literature pertaining to value-added assessments in K-12 education. Selected research needs and practical concerns related to the use of value-added models for the assessment of teacher preparation are discussed.
Ballou, D. (2004). Rejoinder. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 131-134.
2.
Ballou, D., Sanders, W.,& Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37-65.
3.
Carrilio, T. E., Packard, T., & Clapp, J. D. (2003). Nothing in—nothing out: Barriers to the use of performance data in social service programs. Administration in Social Work, 27, 61-75.
4.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 295-299.
5.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Toward what end? The evaluation of student learning for the improvement of teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 248-263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
Dodson, M., Dougan, A., Frisby, C., Johnson, M., Kozloff, M., & Madigan, K. (2002). Recommendations of the external evaluators redesigned teacher preparation programs: Undergraduate programs, masters alternative certification, & practitioner teacher programs. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Board of Regents.
7.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285.
8.
Gramlich, E. M. (1997). A guide to benefit-cost analysis(2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
9.
Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., & Dunbar, S. B. (1996). Iowa tests of basic skills, Form M. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
10.
Louisiana Board of Regents and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Select Panel for Evaluation of the Redesign of University Teacher Preparation Programs. (2001). Guidelines for the submission and review of redesigned teacher preparation programs. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Board of Regents.
11.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Kortez, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Kortez, D. M., Louis, T. A.,& Hamilton, L. S. (2004a). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 67-102.
13.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Kortez, D. M., Louis, T. A.,& Hamilton, L. S. (2004b). Let's see more empirical studies on value-added modeling of teacher effects: A Reply to Raudenbush, Rubin, Stuart, and Zanutto. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 139-144.
14.
McCulloch, C. E., & Searle, S. R. (2001). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Mitzel, H. C., & Borden, C. F. (2000). LEAP for the 21st century: 1999 operational final technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
16.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.
17.
Noell, G. H. (2004). Technical report of: Assessing teacher preparation program effectiveness: A pilot examination of value added approaches. Retrieved from http://asa.regents.state.la.us/TE/technical_report.pdf
18.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice?Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 121-129.
19.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
20.
Reckase, M. D. (2004). The real world is more complicated than we would like. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 117-120.
21.
Roderick, M., Jaccob, B. A.,& Bryk, A. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 24, 333-357.
22.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What largescale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospectsstudy of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
23.
Rubin, D. B., Stuart, E. A., & Zanutto, E. L. (2004). Apotential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 103-116.
24.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
25.
Sentell, W. (2004, August 26). Louisiana may be first to draw link. The Advocate, pp. A1-A1, A5-A5.
26.
Shelfon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164-180.
27.
Tekwe, C. D., Carter, R. L., Ma, C., Algina, J., Lucas, M. E., Roth, J., et al. (2004). An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 11-37.
28.
Thompson, B. R. (2004). Equitable measurement of school effectiveness. Urban Education, 39, 200-229.
29.
Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2004). Value-added assessment [Special issue]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1).
30.
Webster, W. J., & Mendro, R. L. (1997). The Dallas valueadded accountability system. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure?(pp. 81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
31.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
