Engaging With Teacher Preparation Programs to Use Value-Added Assessment Results

• In Event: 16.033 - After the Fire Alarm: How Value-Added Analyses of Teacher Preparation Programs May Contribute to Program Improvement

Abstract

This presentation describes the collaborative work between teacher preparation programs, the Louisiana Board of Regents, the Louisiana Department of Education, and analysts to develop analytic data bases that have the potential to be informative and useful in examining the relationship between teacher preparation and student learning outcomes on state administered standardized achievement tests in tested grades and subjects. Three phases of the longitudinal and developmental relationship between these four entities will be summarized. The first phase described is the developmental phase, when the rules and structure of the value added assessment was developed and results were shared with providers. During this phase of the relationship teacher preparation providers’ concerns were typically focused on rules governing data quality, business rules governing treatment of the data, and unintended adverse impacts. We will summarize some of these concerns and actions taken to address them. The second phase was the public reporting of initial results. These reports triggered a desire and later a mandate for program revision for two programs. The initial efforts to augment value added results with additional data guiding programmatic revision will be described. The third phase of the relationship centers on the ongoing relationship and the types of additional data that teacher preparation programs judge to be helpful in elaborating on their value added results. Examples of the types of data requested and provided will be provided with some discussion of their limitations.

The paper will conclude with a brief discussion of the challenges inherent in attempting to establish an ongoing substantive engagement to use outcome data to strengthen teacher preparation in a context of evolving policy, assessments, and differing interests in the process.

Author

• George Noell, Louisiana State University