Value-Added Assessment of Teacher Preparation

Abstract

As states move to teacher evaluation that is intended to capture teacher contributions to students’ learning outcomes, some states have adopted value-added measures to examine teachers’ and teacher preparation programs’ effectiveness. In Louisiana, the value-added assessment of teacher preparation programs includes students with disabilities and has provided part of the impetus for the increasing national interest in assessing teacher preparation through value-added indicators and developing action plans in response to value-added results. These results can signal concerns across content areas, program delivery, and student characteristics, but are not prescriptive regarding follow-up actions. This article provides (a) an introduction to value-added assessment, (b) how Louisiana has used value-added metrics for the assessment of teacher preparation programs, (c) the use of special education status within the models, and (d) limitations and benefits of value-added assessment results for evaluating teacher preparation programs. Finally, the particular challenges associated with value-added assessment of special educator preparation are discussed.

Evaluating the Tennessee Higher Education Commission's Report Card on the value-added estimates of teacher preparation programs

“…Louisiana is the only other state with a longstanding tradition of embracing the full TVASS model to evaluate TPPs (Gansle et al, 2010(Gansle et al, , 2012Noell et al, 2008Noell et al, , 2009. Now on its seventh year of publication, the state of Tennessee's release of this report card in November each year has a wide appeal for the governor and state policymakers who have advanced national and state value-added initiatives for several decades as the mantle of education reform.…”

Establishing Content Validity of the Quality Indicators for Classrooms Serving Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders Instrument

“…Over the past 5 years, the relative merits of value-added models for teacher evaluation, including those for special educators, have increasingly been questioned (American Statistical Association, 2014; Gansle et al, 2015; Harris & Herrington, 2015). Consequently, the recently reauthorized Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015) not only maintains a focus on accountability systems and teacher effectiveness but also provides increased flexibility, placing the responsibility for developing and implementing teacher evaluation systems in the hands of states and local education agencies (LEAs).…”

“…A classroom observation conducted by a supervisor or school administrator is the most widely used measure of teacher effectiveness and may be “used to measure observable classroom processes, including specific teacher practices, holistic aspects of instruction, and interactions between teachers and students” (Goe et al, 2008, p. 16). Given the problems associated with application of value-added measures to special education teachers (Ballou & Springer, 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2015; Harris & Herrington, 2015; Gansle et al, 2015; Goldhaber, 2015; Jones, Buzick, & Turkan, 2013), it can be anticipated that increased emphasis will be placed on observation systems as a data source for teacher evaluation (Jones & Brownell, 2014). A range of teacher observation systems are available and effective in discriminating between effective teachers and those who are less effective (Klinger, Brownell, & Bateman, 2011).…”