Educators struggle with “value-added” teacher evaluation models based on high-stakes student assessments. Despite validity and reliability threats, these models evaluate university-based teacher preparation programs (TPPs), and play a role in state and professional accreditation. This study reports a more rational value-added evaluation model linking student performance to teacher candidates’ lessons during Practicum and Student Teaching. Results indicate that K-12 students showed learning gains on these lessons, with mixed findings on comparisons of part-time to full-time internships, academic and functional lessons, and candidates’ grade point averages (GPAs). Results indicated that teacher candidates’ lessons are a viable value-added model (VAM) alternative for TPPs.
American Educational Research Association. (2015). AERA statement on use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44, 448-452.
3.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2008). Methodological concerns about the Education Value-Added Assessment System. Educational Researcher, 37, 65-75.
4.
BallouD.SpringerM. G. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 44, 77-86.
5.
BerlinerD. C. (1976). Impediments to the study of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 5-13.
6.
BerlinerD. C. (2013). Problems with value-added evaluations of teachers? Let me count the ways!The Teacher Educator, 48, 235-243. doi:10.1080/08878730.2013.827496
7.
BerlinerD. C. (2014). Exogenous variables and value-added assessments: A fatal flaw. Teachers College Press, 116(1) Article 17293. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library
8.
BradyM. P.DuffyM. L.HazelkornM.BucholzJ. (2014). Policy and systems change: Planning for unintended consequences. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87, 102-109.
9.
BradyM. P.HeiserL. A.McCormickJ. K.ForganJ. (2016). Adding value-added models to teacher preparation programs: Validity and reliability threats, and a manageable alternative. The Educational Forum, 80, 339-352.
10.
BuzickH. M.LaitusisC. C. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research. Educational Researcher, 39, 537-544.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CreemersB. P. M.ReezigtG. J. (1996). School-level conditions affecting the effectiveness of instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 197-228.
13.
Darling-HammondL. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation?Educational Researcher, 44, 132-137.
14.
ElliottS. N.RoachA. T.KurzA. (2014). Evaluating and advancing the effective teaching of special educators with a dynamic instructional practices portfolio. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 83-98.
15.
FlodenR. (2012). Teacher value added as a measure of program quality: Interpret with caution. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 356-360.
GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2015). Make room Value Added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44, 96-104.
18.
HamiltonR.BradyM. P. (1991). Individual and classwide patterns of teachers’ questioning in mainstreamed social studies and science classes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 253-262.
19.
HillH. C.KapitulaL.UmlandK. A. (2011). Validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 794-831.
20.
HoldheideL.GoeL.CroftA.ReschlyD. (2010). Challenges in evaluating special education teachers and English language learner specialists. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/July2010Brief.pdf
21.
JonesN. D.BrownellM. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 112-124.
22.
JonesN. D.BuzickH. M.TurkanS. (2013). Including students with disabilities and English learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42, 234-241.
23.
LincoveJ. A.OsborneC.DillonA.MillsN. (2014). The politics and statistics of value-added modeling for accountability of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 24-38.
24.
LockwoodJ. R.McCaffreyD. F.HamiltonL. S.StetcherB. M.LeV.MartinezF. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 47-67.
25.
McCaffreyD. F.SassT. R.LockwoodJ. R.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572-606.
26.
McCulloughM.EnglishB.AngusM. H.GillB. (2015). Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts (REL 2015–093). Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
27.
Moore JohnsonS. (2015). Will VAMs reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school?Educational Researcher, 44, 117-126.
28.
MorgansteinD.WassersteinR. (2014). ASA statement on value-added models. Statistics and Public Policy, 1, 108-110. doi:10.1080/2330443X.2014.956906
29.
PapayJ. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Education Research Journal, 48, 163-193.
30.
PecheoneR. L.ShearB.WhittakerA.Darling-HammondL. (2013). 2013 edTPA field test: Summary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity.
31.
SteinbrecherT. D.SeligJ. P.CosbeyJ.ThorstensenB. I. (2014). Evaluating special educator effectiveness: Addressing issues inherent to value-added modeling. Exceptional Children, 80, 323-336.
32.
SwankP. R.TaylorR. D.BradyM. P.FreibergJ. (1989). Sensitivity of classroom observation systems: Measuring teacher effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 171-186.
