CONSTRUCTING AUTHENTIC AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AND...

CONSTRUCTING AUTHENTIC AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

FOR MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESSAND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Brenda Burrell, Ph.D. , Paul M. Bole , Ed.D. Janice Janz, Ph.D, & Richelle Voelker, M.Ed.

University of New Orleans (UNO)

Kristin A. Gansle, Ph.D.Louisiana State University (LSU)

CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENT LEARNING THROUGH EFFECTIVE TEACHER PREPARATIONS

Purpose

Assessment • Demand for accountability

• Opportunity to examine the relationship between teaching and learning

• Evidence of strengths, needs for improvement, and impact

“The processes

of teaching

and learning

stimulate

one another.”

(Confucius)

Agenda

Louisiana Department of Education LA Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) AssessmentValue-Added Teacher Evaluation ModelData and Results

UNO Collaborative Redesign ProjectCollaborative ProcessesResults: In-ProgressSubsequent Plans

Conversations with ColleaguesDiscussion QuestionsOpen Discussion

LOUISIANA METRICS OF TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

INCORPORATING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Kristin A. Gansle , Ph.D.Louisiana State University (LSU)

LA Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) Assessment 2000-2001 & Following

• How to measure our program completers’ success in terms of the achievement of their students?

• Especially important given statewide redesign of academic programs including SpEd by TPPs

• BoR (Jeanne Burns), Blue Ribbon Commission, LSU (George Noell, Kristin Gansle)

• Have been using Value-Added metrics to evaluate TPPs since 2003

What Do We Do?• Predict achievement of individual students based on

prior achievement, demographics, and attendance (using State achievement tests: HLM, mean approx 300, sd approx 50)

• Assess actual student achievement• Link the difference between predicted achievement and

actual student achievement to their new teachers and the TPPs that taught them

• Act on results

Predictors for LDOE Value-AddedTeacher Evaluation Model (Current Model)

• Prior Student Achievement• Attendance• Gifted Classification• Free/Reduced Lunch Status• Section 504 Status• Disability Status• Discipline Records

• Retained students are included in the analysis

Value-Added Model

• State Achievement Tests (Math, Science, Social Studies, Reading, & Language Arts - Grades 4-9)

• New Teachers: • 1st and 2nd year teachers with regular certificates• Teaching within area of certification• Full academic year with their students

• Experienced Teachers:• 3rd or subsequent year teachers with regular certificates • Teaching within area of certification

• Each year: all districts, 250,000 students, 7000+ teachers, 1300+ schools

Data We Provide to TPPs• (October, 2006) By content areas (Reading, Mathematics, Science,

Social Studies, English/Language Arts)

• (March, 2011) By certification/grade spans within content areas (Grades 1-5, Grades 4-8, Grades 6-12, & Special Education)

• (Fall, 2011) • By student performance subsets within content areas (Low,

Middle, and High)• By special education status (yes/no) for student groups• By free lunch status (free lunch/pay own lunch)• By LEP status

Data We Provide to TPPs(continued)

• (Fall 2011) Deidentified individual teacher data for programs• Value-Added Score for each teacher• Mean content standards scores from standardized testing

program (LEAP, iLEAP) for ELA, Math, Reading, Science, Social Studies

• What does that look like?

Overall Results

  overall

content Nmean effect sem

ELA 75 1.0 0.7

Mathematics 103 5.1 0.9

Reading 48 -2.2 0.9Science 88 2.7 1.0

Social Studies 66 0.7 1.7

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Kristin A. Gansle

kgansle@lsu.edu

Jeanne M. Burns

jeanne.burns@la.gov

George H. Noell

gnoell@lsu.edu

http://regents.la.gov/value-added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-model/

Certification Endorsements

  Elementary Grades Middle School Secondary Grades Special Education

content n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem

ELA 42 -0.8 1.1 30 3.1 1.6 41 -1.0 1.1 12 1.2 2.8

Mathematics47 1.4 1.3 69 4.2 1.2 28 3.8 1.3 12 1.0 1.8

Reading 40 -0.6 0.9 8 3.2 2.9 9 3.0 2.6 8 3.7 2.9

Science 38 -1.6 1.1 40 2.5 1.6 20 -0.4 1.3 5 -2.9 1.9

Social Studies35 -2.7 1.7 10 2.0 4.2 19 4.1 3.2 5 -5.1 4.2

Achievement Bands  Lowest 25% Middle 50% Highest 25%

content n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

semELA 25 -4.7 1.7 34 1.0 1.0 21 -2.2 1.2

Mathematics24 -5.2 1.9 31 2.1 1.2 21 -0.6 1.5

Reading 17 -1.8 1.6 24 0.3 0.9 17 -0.2 0.9Science 27 -2.4 1.0 29 0.0 1.1 19 -0.9 1.2

Social Studies30 -0.9 1.5 37 0.0 1.4 25 -0.1 2.1

Free Lunch/Not SpEd/no SpEd

Free Lunch Paid Lunch Special Education No Special Education Services

  n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem n

mean effect

sem

ELA 50 -0.5 0.8 47 1.3 0.7 40 0.3 1.4 44 -1.3 0.9

Mathematics40 -1.4 1.0 31 2.0 1.1 20 -1.2 1.1 45 -1.9 1.1

Reading 34 -1.9 0.7 43 1.5 0.8 17 -0.9 1.5 38 -2.1 0.9

Science 38 -0.2 1.0 38 0.8 0.8 23 1.0 1.0 32 0.3 1.0

Social Studies45 -1.4 1.1 40 0.7 1.0 29 -0.8 1.5 40 -1.5 1.1

Deidentified Data in Excel File

TPPs Can Use as They Wish

UNO: PROGRAM DATA

Brenda Burrell, Ph.D.

Paul Bole, Ed.D.

Janice Janz, Ph.D.

& Richelle Voelker, M.Ed.

University of New Orleans (UNO)

Collaborative Processes

•Analyzing and synthesizing professional standards and literature

• Interviews, surveys, and discussions with multiple and diverse stakeholders

• Individual and committee design and development work sessions

Results: Work In-Progress

•Response to Louisiana TPP Assessment•Constructive Principles •Concordance of Professional Standards •Revised Conceptual Framework•Answers to Key Questions: Perspectives

Response to LA TPP AssessmentConcerns/Opportunities

• School administrators may not know what to look for when observing special education instruction

Potential Strategies

• Provide professional development opportunities for school leadership personnel

• Develop guidelines aligned with research based special education practices

Response to LA TPP AssessmentConcerns/Opportunities

• It may be difficult to determine how to assign effectiveness scores to special education teachers working in inclusive settings

• Teachers in high-need schools may not be rated similarly as those in more advantaged schools

Potential Strategies

• Research • Disseminate findings• Make recommendations • Facilitate systemic

changes

Response to LA TPP AssessmentConcerns/Opportunities

• It may be difficult for special education teachers to score “highly effective” on some elements of the Danielson framework

• Some teachers may develop Student Learning Targets (SLTs) that are problematic

Potential Strategies

• Advocate for revised descriptions in rubric to align with special education practices and provide corresponding examples to assist principals when observing effective instructional practices

• Review samples of SLTs developed by special education teachers to determine specific issues and develop corresponding training materials

Constructive Principles•Collaboratively Designed• Informed by Multiple and Diverse Resources•Linked to Professional Standards•Useful for Multiple Assessment Points•Yields Data to Inform/Improve Teacher Education

Concordance of Professional Standards

• Danielson Framework for Teaching

• Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)  • International Reading Association (IRA)• National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)• National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)• National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS)• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)

• Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching • UNO Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers 

Revised Conceptual FrameworkRoles & Responsibilities of Effective Teachers

•Manage Classroom Contexts/Environments

•Design Curriculum and Instruction

•Deliver Instruction and Assess Learning

•Participate in Professional Responsibilities (e.g., Advocacy, Collaboration, Using Data to Improve Practice)

Answers to Key Questions: PerspectivesQuestions

• How should IHE faculty assess teachers’ use of evidence-based practices and teacher effectiveness

• How should IHE faculty assess program completers’ impact on student learning and student behavioral progress?

Sample Responses• Video Sample of Teaching

• Surveys/Interviews

• Informal Observations

• Progress Monitoring

• Student Work Samples

• Student/Teacher Portfolios

Subsequent Plans• Develop our own teacher evaluation rubric

• Use same teacher evaluation rubric across concluding semesters of preparation and during initial years of teaching after program completion (induction); using evaluation to provide support

• Conduct field testing and research

• Make recommendations to the Louisiana DOE regarding rubric currently used for State teacher assessment and/or training provided to evaluators

Conversations with Colleagues

Question: Set 1 

• What data related to teacher effectiveness and student achievement should and can be collected by faculty in teacher education programs?

• What data will represent authentic and meaningful measures of academic and behavioral performance and growth of students with high incidence disabilities and is also available to university faculty?

Conversations with Colleagues

Question: Set 2• Are administrators and other teacher evaluators sufficiently informed to assess teachers with students with special needs in an inclusive setting or other settings?

• What professional development opportunities would be most helpful and how could or should they be delivered?

Conversations with Colleagues

Question: Set 3• How can IHEs assess positive teacher impact on students who do not demonstrate academic or behavior progress?

• Should teacher performance be aligned exclusively with teacher effectiveness, as indicated by student performance?

Conversations with Colleagues

Open Discussion 

Contact InformationUniversity of New Orleans (UNO)Department of Special Educationand Habilitative Services

Brenda Burrell Janice Janz

bburrell@uno.edu jgjanz@uno.edu

Paul Bole Richelle Voelker

pbole@uno.edu rvoelker@uno.edu