Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

New federal and state policies require that teacher preparation programs (TPP) be held accountable for the effectiveness of their graduates as measured by test score gains of the students they teach. In this article, the authors review the approaches taken in several states that have already estimated TPP effects and analyze the proposals for incorporating students’ test score gains into the evaluations of TPP by states that have received federal Race to the Top funds. The authors organize their review to focus on three types of decisions that are required to implement these new accountability requirements: (a) selection of teachers, students, subjects, and years of data; (b) methods for estimating teachers’ effects on student test score gains; and (c) reporting and interpretation of effects. The purpose of the review is to inform the teacher preparation community on the state of current and near term practice for adding measures of teacher effectiveness to TPP accountability practices.

Keywords

teacher preparation value-added models program evaluation quantitative methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaronson

Barrow

Sander

(2003). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. (Working Paper Series: WP-02–28)

Auty

Bielawski

Deeter

Hirata

Hovanetz-Lassila

Rheim

. . .Williams

(2008). Implementer’s guide to growth models. Retrieved from The Council of Chief of State School Officers website: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Implementers_Guide_to_Growth_2008.pdf

Ballou

Sanders

Wright

(2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment for teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37-65.

Betebenner

(2009a). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 42-51.

Betebenner

(2009b). A primer on student growth percentiles. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdedocs/Research/PDF/Aprimeronstudentgrowthpercentiles.pdf

Boyd

D. J.

Grossman

Lankford

Loeb

Michelli

N. M.

Wyckoff

(2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in New York City schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 155-166.

Boyd

D. J.

Grossman

Lankford

Loeb

Michelli

N. M.

Wyckoff

(2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416-440.

Braun

H. I.

(2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models (Tech. Rep.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Buzick

H. M.

Laitusis

C. C.

(2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research. Educational Researcher, 39, 537-544.

10.

California Department of Education. (2011). 2010 STAR Test Results: About 2010 STAR. Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/aboutSTAR.asp

11.

Clotfelter Ladd

Vigdor

(2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-682.

12.

Clotfelter Ladd

Vigdor

(2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. The Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681.

13.

Coleman

J. S.

Campbell

E. Q.

Hobson

C. J.

McPartland

Mood

A. M.

Weinfeld

F. D.

York

R. L.

(1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: USGPO.

14.

Crowe

(2010). Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/pdf/teacher_accountability.pdf

15.

Darling-Hammond

Berry

Thoreson

(2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 55-77.

16.

The District of Columbia. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

17.

Florida Department of Education. (2005). FCAT Handbook: A resource for educators. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.

18.

Florida Department of Education. (2009a). 20072008 FCAT learning gains results. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/sites/tampabay.com.blogs.gradebook/files/images/typepad-legacy-files/54957.june-2009-teacher-quality-data.pdf

19.

Florida Department of Education. (2009b). Memorandum: Data on program completers’ impact on K-12 student learning to meet continued approval requirements. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/sites/tampabay.com.blogs.gradebook/files/images/typepad-legacy-files/54991.11-20-09teacher-preparation.pdf

20.

Florida Department of Education. (2009c). Overall performance of 2007-08 teacher preparation program completers teaching reading and mathematics Grade 4-10 during 2008-09. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/sites/tampabay.com.blogs.gradebook/files/images/typepad-legacy-files/54991.tq_deans_list_0809-kh.pdf

21.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Florida End-of-Course (EOC) Assessments. Retrieved from http://fcat.fldoe.org/eoc/

22.

The Florida Senate, Committee on Education Pre-K-12. (2009). Teacher quality: Issue Brief 2010-313. Retrieved from http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2010/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2010-313ed.pdf

23.

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bryant

Davis

G. N.

(2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tiered responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the national research center on learning disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413-436.

24.

Gansle

K. A.

Noell

G. H.

Knox

R. M.

Schafer

M. J.

(2010). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2005-2006 to 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://regents.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/TeacherPreparation/2010VATechnical082610.pdf

25.

Glazerman

Mayer

Decker

(2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 75-96.

26.

Goldhaber

D. D.

Brewer

D. J.

(2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-145.

27.

Goldschmidt

Roschewski

Choi

Auty

Hebbler

Blank

Williams

(2005). Policymakers’ guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ? The Council of Chief of State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2009/Guide_to_United_States_2009.pdf

28.

Greenwald

Hedges

L. V.

Laine

R. D.

(1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.

29.

Henry

G. T.

Bastian

K. C.

Smith

A. A.

(2012). Scholarships to recruit the “best and brightest” into teaching: Who is recruited, where do they teach, how effective are they, and how long do they stay? Educational Research, 41(3), 83-92.

30.

Henry

G. T.

Thompson

C. L.

Bastian

K. C.

Fortner

C. K.

Kershaw

D. C.

Marcus

J. V.

Zulli

R. A.

(2011). UNC Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness Report. Chapel Hill: Carolina Institute for Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

31.

Henry

G. T.

Thompson

C. L.

Bastian

K. C.

Fortner

C. K.

Kershaw

D. C.

Purtell

K. M.

Zulli

R. A.

(2010). Portal report: Teacher preparation and student test scores in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Carolina Institute for Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

32.

Henry

G. T.

Thompson

C. L.

Fortner

C. K.

Zulli

R. A.

Kershaw

D. C.

(2010). The impact of teacher preparation on student learning in North Carolina public schools. Chapel Hill: Carolina Institute for Public Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

33.

Horner

(2009). Quantifying student growth: Analysis of the validity of applying growth models to the California Standards Test. Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Horner-2920.pdf;jsessionid=81F14E4D9DD8AB29986304A535E41942

34.

Kane

Rockoff

Staiger

(2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. NBER Working Paper 12155. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12155

35.

Mark

M. M.

Henry

G.T.

Julnes

(2000). Evaluation: an integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving public and nonprofit policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Murawski

W. W.

Lochner

W. W.

(2011).Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 174-183.

37.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers.

38.

National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

39.

Noell

G. H.

(2006). Technical report of: Assessing teacher preparation program effectiveness: A pilot examination of value added approaches (2006). Retrieved from http://www.laregentsarchive.com/Academic/TE/technical_report.pdf

40.

Noell

G. H.

Burns

J. L.

(2006). Value-added assessment of teacher preparation: An illustration of emerging technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 37-50.

41.

Noell

G. H.

Burns

J. M.

(2007). Value added teacher preparation assessment overview of 2006-07 study. Retrieved from http://regents.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/TeacherPreparation/NarrativeDescriptionof2006-07ValueAddedStudy10.24.07.pdf

42.

Noell

G. H.

Porter

B. A.

Patt

R. M.

(2007). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2004–2006. Retrieved from http://regents.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/TeacherPreparation/VAATPPTechnicalReport10-24-2007.pdf

43.

Noell

G. H.

Porter

B. A.

Patt

R. M.

Dahir

(2008). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2004-2005 to 2006-2007. Retrieved from http://www.laregentsarchive.com/Academic/TE/2008/Final%20Value-Added%20Report%20(12.02.08).pdf

44.

Nye

Konstantopoulos

Hedges

(2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.

45.

O’Malley

Auty

Bielawski

Bernstein

Boatman

Deeter

. . .Blank

(2009). Guide to United States Department of Education Growth Model Pilot Program 2005-2008. The Council of Chief of State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2009/Guide_to_United_States_2009.pdf

46.

Reardon

S. F.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 492-519.

47.

Rivkin

Hanushek

Kain

(2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

48.

Rockoff

(2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.

49.

Sanders

W. L.

Horn

(1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299-311.

50.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Retrieved from the University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center website: http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/3048.pdf

51.

Sanders

W. L.

Saxton

A. M.

Horn

S. P.

(1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative, outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In Millman

(Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools (pp. 137-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

52.

The State of Delaware. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 1. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/index.html

53.

The State of Florida. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

54.

The State of Georgia. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

55.

The State of Hawaii. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

56.

The State of Maryland. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

57.

The State of Massachusetts. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

58.

The State of Massachusetts. (2011). MCAS student growth percentiles: Interpretive guide. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/growth/InterpretiveGuide.pdf

59.

The State of New York. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

60.

The State of North Carolina. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

61.

The State of Ohio. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

62.

The State of Rhode Island. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 2. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

63.

The State of Tennessee. (2010). Race to the Top Proposal, Phase 1. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/index.html

64.

Tekwe

C. D.

Carter

R. L.

Algina

Lucas

M. E.

Roth

. . .Resnick

M. B.

(2004). An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 11-36.

65.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2009). Report card on the effectiveness of teacher training programs. November Report. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/sbe/TeacherReportCard/2009/2009%20Report%20Card%20on%20Teacher%20Effectiveness.pdf

66.

Tennessee State Board of Education. (2010). Report card on the effectiveness of teacher training programs. December Report. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/sbe/Teacher%20Report%20Card%202010/2010%20Report%20Card%20on%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Teacher%20Training%20Programs.pdf

67.

Voorhees

R. A.

Barnes

Rothman

(2003). Data systems to enhance teacher quality. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.

68.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Overview information; Race to the Top Fund. Federal Register, 75(71), 19496-19531.

69.

Wilson

Floden

Ferrini-Mundy

(2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

70.

Wright

S. P.

White

J. T.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(2010). SAS® EVAAS® Statistical Models (white paper). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

71.

Hannaway

Taylor

(2011). Making a difference? The effects of Teach For America in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3): 447-469.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.49 MB

Incorporating Teacher Effectiveness Into Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material