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

Jeanne.burns@la.gov

http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/