Adobe Photoshop PDF - publicpolicy.unc.edupublicpolicy.unc.edu/files/2014/02/TeacherPrepEffectRpt_Final_2011.pdf · a citizen within a democracy are not captured by these standardized

Carolina Institute for Public Policy

UNC Teacher Preparation ProgramEffectiveness Report

July 2011

UNC Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness Report

July 2011

by

Gary T. Henry, UNC–Chapel Hill

Charles L. Thompson, East Carolina University

Kevin C. Bastian, UNC–Chapel Hill

C. Kevin Fortner, UNC–Chapel Hill

David C. Kershaw, UNC–Chapel Hill

Jade V. Marcus, UNC–Chapel Hill

Rebecca A. Zulli, UNC–Chapel Hill

Acknowledgements

We wish to recognize Alisa Chapman, Alan Mabe and Keith Brown with the University of North

Carolina General Administration for their vital contributions in providing data and working as

partners throughout the research and communication processes.

We also wish to thank the deans and department heads from the colleges, schools and

departments of education at the 15 UNC institutions engaged in teacher education for their

valuable input during the development of the models and discussions of the findings. We

gratefully acknowledge the many contributions made by our current and former researchers and

fellows at the Carolina Institute for Public Policy, including Ashu Handa, Doug Lauen, Adrienne

Smith, and Kelly Purtell. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the editing and formatting work done

by Elizabeth D’Amico, who is responsible for the overall look and polish of the report. All

authors accept responsibility for any remaining errors in the report.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Data and Methods 3

Comparing University Teacher Preparation Programs to All Other Teachers 4

Results 7

Conclusion 13

Tables:

Table 1: Standard Model Control Variables 4

Table 2: Institution Abbreviations 5

Table 3: UNC Institutional Counts 7

Table 4: Summary of Results 11

Table 5: Teacher Counts by UNC System School, Level and Subject 12

Table 6: Key for the Interpretation of Coefficients (Days Equivalency) 13

Figures:

Figure 1: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: Elementary School

Mathematics and Reading 8

Figure 2: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: Middle School

Mathematics, Reading, Science, and Algebra I 9

Figure 3: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: High School

All Subjects, English I, Math, Science and Social Studies 10

Introduction

This report marks the second set of results assessing the effectiveness of North Carolina public

university teacher preparation programs, produced in collaboration with the UNC General

Administration by the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina within the Carolina Institute for

Public Policy. The purpose of this report remains the same as the original round of analyses – to

reliably estimate the average test score gains for public school students taught by recent

graduates of each of UNC’s fifteen teacher preparation programs. This report applies the value-

added models used in the first study with the addition of new control variables suggested by

stakeholders. Several other changes between the initial analysis published in January 20101 and

this edition are outlined within this report.

Generating quantitative estimates of program effectiveness allows the UNC institutions to see

where their program graduates struggle, where they perform well, provides a starting point for

the comparison of program characteristics that relate to student achievement scores, and points to

programs that need improvement. The information in this report covers programmatic effects

across the entire range of grade levels and subjects tested by public schools in North Carolina.

Estimates of program effectiveness vary widely across these subject and grade level

combinations. There is no single measure or overall effectiveness for each program.

Two types of models were conducted for this analysis: 1) models comparing the graduates of

each of the 15 public institutions to the aggregate of all other teachers in the state, and 2)

individual campus models that make each program the reference group in order to generate

estimates of the value-added differences between the reference program and 12 other categories

of teacher preparation. The two approaches serve different purposes. The first allows

comparisons between each of the teacher preparation programs and a common reference group

representing the average of all other types of teacher preparation. In a sense, this analysis

compares each of the programs to the teaching corps that North Carolina would have if the UNC

programs did not exist. These program effect estimates include both the knowledge and skills

that teachers develop while they are prospective teachers at a particular university and the

capacity or learned ability that the prospective teachers bring with them into a particular teacher

preparation program. While it may be useful to separate these effects to determine which

programs add more value in the preparation process to a teacher’s effectiveness, the education

that a teacher provides to a student in North Carolina (NC) Public Schools is a product of both.

Therefore, these estimates are intended to capture the total effect of teacher preparation and

selection effects in a single estimate of value-added model outcomes.

1 Henry, G.T., Thompson, C.L., Fortner, C.K., Zulli, R.A. Kershaw, D.C (2010). The Impacts of Teacher Preparation

on Student Test Scores in North Carolina Public Schools. Chapel Hill, NC: The Carolina Institute for Public Policy.


Page 2 of 13

The second set of models provides a more detailed comparison between teachers prepared by an

individual institution and teachers prepared through other sources of teacher preparation. These

estimates allow programs to see how they rank compared to 12 other types of teacher

preparation, including teachers from the Teach For America program and other Alternative Entry

teachers. Across 11 different grade and subject areas, these models estimate the differences in

effectiveness between teachers prepared at each individual UNC undergraduate teacher

preparation program and teachers from 12 other categories of preparation. These models vary the

point of comparison to the reference institution in each model, but allow direct comparisons,

including tests of statistical significance, between the reference institution and each of the 12

other categories of teachers. The 12 other categories of teachers are defined in the UNC Teacher

Preparation Program Effectiveness Technical Report.

The effectiveness of teacher preparation programs should be judged in large measure on the

extent to which teachers prepared by these programs are able to produce gains in students’

knowledge and skills commensurate with what they are expected to know and be able to do. In

this case, we use the state tests as the measures of student learning. In this report, we aim to

isolate the influence of teachers on the full slate of End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course

(EOC) tests administered by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. These test

scores have strengths and weaknesses as a method for estimating teaching effectiveness. The

state testing program within North Carolina serves as a model for other states, and the state’s test

scores are widely used in rigorous, high quality research and evaluation studies. State tests within

North Carolina are aligned with the NC Standard Course of Study within each grade and/or

subject. Tests in reading and math in grades 3 to 8 are vertically scaled to allow comparisons

across years and grades. Student EOG and EOC test scores have also served as the basis for

calculating Adequate Yearly Progress and the ABCs bonus program in North Carolina. Because

EOC and EOG tests are closely aligned with the intended curriculum, test scores are appropriate

for estimating the effectiveness of the UNC teacher preparation programs’ graduates.

The weaknesses of using student test score outcomes to measure teaching effectiveness include

the limited subjects and grades in which testing is conducted. Students below grade three are not

tested; students in 3rd

through 8th

grade are only tested in reading and mathematics, annually, and

in science only in 5th

and 8th

grade, preventing any estimates of teacher effectiveness based on

test scores in other subject or grade level combinations. Also, other important outcomes such as

graduation, attitudes toward school and learning, or knowledge of one’s rights and obligations as

a citizen within a democracy are not captured by these standardized tests. The tests do track

what individual teachers are expected to teach their students in specific grades and subjects, so

while limited they do provide useful outcome-based information for assessing the effectiveness

of teacher preparation programs.


Page 3 of 13

The next section of this report provides an overview of the data and methodology of the current

analyses and the changes between this version of the teaching program effectiveness estimates

and the prior report2. Further sections will outline the results of the analysis comparing each

program to the composite of all other sources of teacher preparation and a conclusion section.

The UNC Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness Technical Report provides further detail

on the modeling approach utilized for the analysis and the complete model results including all

control variables included in the program comparison models. Separate campus reports provide

results from the individual campus models.

Data and Methods

This second version of the teacher preparation program effectiveness report continues to utilize a

value-added modeling approach that compares the average student learning gains for students

whose teachers have different types of preparation prior to entering the classroom in North

Carolina. These value-added models are estimated within a multi-level model specification with

extensive controls at the student, classroom, and school level. Limited controls for teachers

(years of experience and out-of-field teaching) are included in the models in order to generate

comparable estimates of the total effect of teacher preparation programs on student achievement.

For example, although we expect teachers with higher Praxis scores and National Board

Certification to generate greater learning gains for their students on average, we exclude these

variables from the analysis since teachers from certain institutions or training programs may be

more likely to have some of these characteristics, and including them would bias estimates of a

program’s effects downward. The technical report elaborates on the research design of the study,

the regression equations, and presents detailed model output.

Table 1 below includes a complete list of control variables included at each of the three levels in

the multi-level model. In this set of program comparison estimates, we added three control

variables representing student mobility. Structural mobility refers to students who changed

schools due to the grade configuration of a school (i.e. 6th

grade students in a 6 - 8 middle

school). Between-year mobility refers to students who attended or tested at a different school in

the prior academic year, and within-year mobility refers to students whose enrollment in a school

during the year was more than two weeks short of a full year.

2 Ibid.


Page 4 of 13

Table 1: Standard Model Control Variables

Student Classroom & Teacher School

1. Prior test scores (reading &

math)

2. Classmates prior test scores

(peer effects)

3. Days absent

4. Structural mobility

5. Between-year mobility

6. Within-year mobility

7. Gender

8. Race/ethnicity

9. Poverty

10. Gifted

11. Disabled

12. Currently limited English

proficient

13. Previously limited English

proficient

14. Overage for grade (held back

or retained at least once)

15. Underage for grade

(promoted two grades)

16. Years of experience

17. Teaching out-of-field

18. Number of students

19. Advanced curriculum

20. Remedial curriculum

21. Dispersion of prior

achievement within

classroom

22. School size (ADM)

23. School size squared

24. Suspension rate

25. Violent acts rate

26. Total per pupil expenditures

27. District teacher supplements

28. Racial/ethnic composition

Concentration of poverty

Comparing University Teacher Preparation Programs to All Other Teachers

Table 2 lists the 15 campuses included in the program comparison results contained in this

report. Separate reports will present the results of each of these campuses compared to 12 other

categories of teacher preparation. Program graduate definitions in this analysis rely on data from

the UNC General Administration which includes information on the undergraduate major(s) and

campus enrollments for each individual paid as a teacher within NC Public Schools who also

attended a North Carolina four-year public institution within the study’s timeframe. Students are

classified as program graduates if they graduated from a UNC institution as an education major

or from another major and simultaneously received a teaching license. These individuals are

considered traditionally prepared teachers in this report regardless of any additional preparation

(such as a master’s degree from another institution) that may have been obtained between

graduating from the traditional teacher education program and starting work as a classroom

teacher. This definition allows the UNC teacher preparation program comparisons to include all

of the traditional undergraduate prepared teachers that graduated from each institution, but


Page 5 of 13

creates slight differences between the teacher categories specified in this report and the Carolina

Institute for Public Policy’s prior publication on portal effectiveness.3

Table 2: Institution Abbreviations

Program Abbreviation

Appalachian State University ASU

East Carolina University ECU

Elizabeth City State University ECSU

Fayetteville State University FSU

North Carolina Agriculture &Technical State University NC A&T

North Carolina Central University NCCU

North Carolina State University NCSU

University of North Carolina Asheville UNCA

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill UNCCH

University of North Carolina - Charlotte UNCC

University of North Carolina Greensboro UNCG

University of North Carolina Pembroke UNCP

University of North Carolina Wilmington UNCW

Western Carolina University WCU

Winston-Salem State University WSSU

The data used for this analysis range from the 2005-06 through the 2009-10 school years. This

five-year span extends the amount of available data from our previous analysis, and updates the

data by two years. This allows us to assess the effectiveness of relatively recent graduates. In

addition, we restrict the models to teachers with less than five years of teaching experience. In

the previous analysis, data were limited to teachers with less than ten years of teaching

experience. The cutoff of less than five years of experience balances a need for sufficient power

to calculate effects and recognizes that teacher training effects will diminish over time as a

teacher gains classroom experience, principal and peer feedback, and other professional

development occurs.

This report expands the analyses to include 11 distinct models for student test score outcomes:

Elementary School (grades 3 – 5) Mathematics and Reading, Middle School (grades 6 – 8)

Mathematics, Reading, Science (grade 8 only), and Algebra I; and High School (grades 9 – 12)

All Subjects, English I, Math (Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry), Science (Biology, Chemistry,

3 (Henry, G.T., Thompson, C.L., Bastian, K.C., Fortner, C.K., Kershaw, D.C., Purtell, K.M., & Zulli, R.A. (2010)

Portal Report: Teacher Preparation and Student Test Scores in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Institute

for Public Policy.


Page 6 of 13

Physical Science, Physics), and Social Studies (US History, Civics & Economics). The previous

report did not include analyses of middle school science, middle school Algebra I, or high school

social studies exams.

We have substantially refined the presentation of results by using a graphical format that

resembles a thermometer and displays institutions or teacher preparation categories vertically,

corresponding to their estimates of value-added effectiveness. These graphs provide a more

accessible visual presentation of the data, but do introduce the need for some explanatory notes.

First, only comparisons with categories that contain at least ten teachers in the group are

reported. This count is based on unique teachers across years and may include numerous years’

observations of student outcomes linked to a teacher. Second, results which are statistically

significant at the 0.05 level are marked with asterisks and bolded to indicate that they are

significantly different from zero. We should also note that these estimates are reported as

percentages of a standard deviation unit, meaning for example that a value of 25 indicates that

the students taught by a teacher from a specific program are expected to generate test score

outcomes 25 percent of a standard deviation higher than other comparable students in similar

schools and classrooms.

Table 3 presents the number of teachers from each institution who were teaching in NC public

schools during the five year study period, the number of teachers with less than 5 years

experience from each institution teaching in NC public schools over the time period, and the

proportion of less than 5 years experience teachers included in models. Teachers are excluded

from models when they teach in non-tested subjects or grades (i.e. kindergarten through grade

two, middle school social studies teachers and high school English II teachers) and due to

missing/unmatched data limitations.


Page 7 of 13

Table 3: UNC Institutional Counts

Program

Total Teachers

from 2005-2006 to

2009-20101

Total Teachers with

Less than 5 Years

Experience from 2005-

2006 to 2009-20102

Total Teachers in

CIPP UNC

Program Models3

Percentage of Teachers

with Less than 5 Years

Experience in CIPP

UNC Program Models4

ASU 5983 2779 1462 52.61%

ECU 5638 2502 1206 48.20%

ECSU 629 210 98 46.67%

FSU 1100 453 272 60.04%

NC A&T 592 271 122 45.02%

NCCU 732 317 156 49.21%

NCSU 1598 914 541 59.19%

UNCA 342 201 128 63.68%

UNCCH 1571 590 289 48.98%

UNCC 2953 1602 907 56.62%

UNCG 3373 1805 741 41.05%

UNCP 1555 573 280 48.87%

UNCW 2889 1548 798 51.55%

WCU 2061 924 457 49.46%

WSSU 538 167 82 49.10% 1Represents the total number of unique, traditionally prepared teachers paid as certified instructors in North Carolina

public schools at least one time between 2005-06 and 2009-10. Counts in this column are for all teachers, regardless

of experience or subject/grade taught. 2 Represents the total number of unique, traditionally prepared teachers with less than five years experience paid as certified

instructors in North Carolina public schools at least one time between 2005-06 and 2009-10. Counts in this column are for all

teachers with less than five years experience, regardless of subject/grade taught. 3 Represents the total number of unique, traditionally prepared teachers with less than five years experience who appeared in this

UNC Programs Analysis performed by the Carolina Institute for Public Policy. Counts in this column are only for teachers in tested

subjects for whom the Carolina Institute for Public Policy had complete data. 4 Represents the percentage of unique, traditionally prepared teachers with less than five years of experience across all

subjects/grades who appeared in the UNC Programs Analysis performed by the Carolina Institute for Public Policy.

Results

The figures below present the results of models which compare the average effectiveness of

teachers from each of UNC’s fifteen teacher preparation programs to the average effectiveness of

teachers from all other sources of preparation. Where estimates are reliably different from all

other sources of teachers (statistically significant), institution names appear in bold text, are

noted with a *, and have points designated with diamonds. Institutions with insufficient data to

release results are excluded from graphs. The scaling of graphs may differ to maximize the

readability of each graph. The technical report provides the values for all model variables in table

form. The results are summarized in Table 4.

UNC Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness ReportPage 8 of 13

Figure 1: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: Elementary School Mathematics and Reading

AllOthers 0.00

ASU* 2.10

UNCG* 3.00

ECSU -4.40

NCCU -3.20

WSSU -1.70

UNCC -1.10

WCU -0.10ECU 0.40

UNCCH 1.00UNCW 1.40

FSU 2.70NCAT 3.00UNCP 3.30

UNCA 3.90

NCSU 10.40

-10.

00-5

.00

0.00

5.00

10.0

0S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

n D

iffer

ence

s in

Per

cent

Elementary School MathPrograms Comparison

AllOthers 0.00

ECU* 1.90 UNCW* 1.90

NCSU -2.90

UNCA -1.80

ECSU -1.20FSU -1.10

WSSU -0.90

UNCC -0.60

ASU 0.00

NCCU 0.10

UNCCH 0.80UNCG 0.80

WCU 1.80

NCAT 2.40

UNCP 2.70

-3.0

02.

00S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

n D

iffer

ence

s in

Per

cent

Elementary School ReadingPrograms Comparison


Figure 2: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: Middle School Mathematics, Reading, Science, and Algebra I

AllOthers

ASU* -2.30

UNCW* 4.20

UNCCH* 6.90 UNCP* 6.90

ECSU -4.50

WSSU -3.20

NCCU -2.70

ECU -2.10 UNCG -2.10NCSU -1.90

WCU -1.10

NCA&T 0.80UNCC 0.90FSU 1.10

UNCA 4.30

-10.

00-5

.00

0.00

5.00

10.0

0S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

n D

iffer

ence

s in

Per

cent

Middle School MathPrograms Comparison

AllOthers

UNCA* -4.20

NCA&T -5.90

WSSU -4.70

ASU -1.00NCSU -0.90

UNCG -0.60

UNCCH -0.10

WCU 0.30 ECU 0.40FSU 0.50 NCCU 0.50

UNCP 1.40ECSU 1.60UNCC 1.70 UNCW 1.80

-6.0

0-3

.00

0.00

3.00

6.00

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

Diff

eren

ces

in P

erce

nt

Middle School ReadingPrograms Comparison

AllOthers

ECU -1.50

UNCW 0.40

WCU 0.90

NCSU 3.30UNCC 3.60

ASU 6.70 UNCCH 6.90

-10.

00-5

.00

0.00

5.00

10.0

0S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

n D

iffer

ence

s in

Per

cent

Middle School SciencePrograms Comparison

AllOthers

UNCC* -14.00

ASU -11.70

NCSU -1.90

UNCW 5.10

ECU 11.50

-15.

00-1

0.00

-5.0

00.

005.

0010

.00

15.0

0S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

n D

iffer

ence

s in

Per

cent

Middle School AlgebraPrograms Comparison


Figure 3: UNC Programs vs. All Other Sources of Teachers: High School All Subjects, English I, Math, Science and Social Studies

AllOthers

ECSU* -11.70

FSU* -4.40

NCSU* 2.40

UNCW* 5.00

UNCC* 5.90

UNCCH -4.60NCCU -4.30

UNCP -3.20 NCA&T -3.00

ECU -1.20

UNCG 0.80

WCU 1.40ASU 1.80

UNCA 3.40

-15

.00

-10

.00

-5.0

00

.00

5.0

01

0.0

01

5.0

0S

tan

da

rd D

evi

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

Pe

rce

nt

High School All SubjectsPrograms Comparison

AllOthers

WCU* 4.20

UNCA -2.70

UNCG -1.60ASU -1.40ECU -1.20

FSU 0.80

NCCU 1.20 NCSU 1.20

UNCW 2.20

UNCC 2.80

-10

.00

-5.0

00

.00

5.0

01

0.0

0S

tan

da

rd D

evi

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

Pe

rce

nt

High School English IPrograms Comparison

AllOthers

UNCC* 4.80

FSU* 6.70

WCU -5.20

NCCU -4.00

NCA&T -3.00

ECU -1.00

UNCP 0.20

UNCA 1.00

ASU 1.80

NCSU 2.20

UNCW 2.80

UNCG 5.10

-10

.00

-5.0

00

.00

5.0

01

0.0

0S

tan

da

rd D

evi

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

Pe

rce

nt

High School MathPrograms Comparison

AllOthers

WCU* -13.00

ECU* -8.30

UNCC* 23.70

NCSU -1.20

UNCG 1.40

UNCA 4.30

ASU 7.50 UNCP 7.80

UNCW 11.90

-30

.00

-20

.00

-10

.00

0.0

01

0.0

02

0.0

03

0.0

0S

tan

da

rd D

evi

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

Pe

rce

nt

High School SciencePrograms Comparison

AllOthers

ECU* 6.60UNCC* 6.70

NCSU* 9.10

UNCP -8.80

FSU -4.20

UNCG -0.30

ASU 0.20UNCW 0.40

WCU 5.80

-10

.00

-5.0

00

.00

5.0

01

0.0

0S

tan

da

rd D

evi

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

Pe

rce

nt

High School Social StudiesPrograms Comparison


Page 11 of 13

Table 4: Summary of Results

The results summarized in Table 4 (above) are based on the number of statistically significant

positive or negative comparisons for each institution across the 11 models. Table 5 (below)

summarizes the number of teachers by institution included in each model. Increased numbers of

teachers in a particular group decrease the size of standard errors and make statistically

significant findings more likely. Schools with small sample sizes are unlikely to show

statistically significant results, even when the coefficient is relatively distant from zero compared

to other estimates.

Institutions with

Two or More Positive Results

Outperforming

the Reference Group Comparisons

Underperforming

the Reference Group

Comparisons

ECU ES Reading; HS Social Studies HS Science

NCSU HS All Subjects; HS Social Studies -----

UNCC HS All Subjects; HS Mathematics;

HS Science; HS Social Studies MS Algebra

UNCW ES Reading; MS Mathematics;

HS All Subjects -----

Institutions with

One Positive Result

Outperforming


Underperforming

the Reference Group

Comparisons

ASU ES Mathematics MS Mathematics

FSU HS Mathematics HS All Subjects

UNCCH MS Mathematics -----

UNCG ES Mathematics -----

UNCP MS Mathematics -----

WCU HS English HS Science

Institutions with

No Statistically Significant

Results

Outperforming


Underperforming

the Reference Group

Comparisons

NCA&T ----- -----

NCCU ----- -----

WSSU ----- -----

Institutions with

One Statistically Significant

Negative Result and

No Positive Results

Outperforming


Underperforming

the Reference Group

Comparisons

ECSU ----- HS All Subjects

UNCA ----- MS Reading


Page 12 of 13

Table 5: Teacher Counts by UNC System School, Level and Subject

Teacher

Preparation

Programs

ES

Math

ES

Read

MS

Math

MS

Read

MS

Science

MS

Algebra

HS All

Subjects

HS

English

HS

Math

HS

Science

HS Social

Studies

ASU 627 704 162 173 22 28 401 99 123 43 145

ECU 579 648 130 141 27 22 260 65 78 47 72

ECSU 56 57 17 11 0 1 13 6 2 2 4

FSU 94 98 41 51 5 6 77 16 40 5 18

NCA&T 55 59 19 14 1 6 29 9 16 2 4

NCCU 79 85 17 16 2 8 36 13 13 2 9

NCSU 16 18 79 116 22 27 306 57 134 62 55

UNCA 49 51 10 17 1 4 49 17 14 11 7

UNCCH 167 180 38 43 10 8 18 5 8 5 1

UNCC 468 533 109 91 24 19 150 31 59 11 50

UNCG 368 406 72 102 7 9 154 65 40 15 39

UNCP 116 141 26 33 5 2 75 9 29 15 24

UNCW 400 452 98 80 16 19 152 53 58 14 28

WCU 181 210 66 64 10 6 107 25 33 18 33

WSSU 40 48 10 16 1 1 7 0 3 0 4

*Cells highlighted in grey have less than ten teachers and therefore do not have any results reported.


Page 13 of 13

Results in Elementary and Middle School Mathematics and Reading models may be interpreted

in terms of the equivalent days of instruction gained (or lost) by comparable students whose

teacher is from a particular program compared to the reference group. Table 6 contains values for

interpretation of effectiveness estimates (coefficients) depending on the model under

consideration. For example, comparable students in similar classrooms and schools are expected

to score as if they had attended 12 and one-half extra days of school when they are taught by a

teacher whose effectiveness estimate (coefficient) is five points higher than the reference group

in Elementary School Mathematics. These estimates vary based on the subject and grade level,

and the exact formulas for calculating values based on different results is found in the technical

report.

Table 6: Key for the Interpretation of Coefficients (Days Equivalency)

Result Values ES Math ES Reading MS Math MS Reading

15.00 37.60 days 43.02 days 80.22 days 77.14 days



2.00 5.01 days 5.74 days 10.70 days 10.28 days Note: These result values show days equivalency in relation to the reference group; negative result values have negative days

equivalency results.

Note: See the technical report for directions to calculate days equivalency.

Conclusion

Of the 15 traditional teacher education programs at UNC institutions, most are performing about

as well or better than all other sources of teachers in terms of their estimated impact on student

EOG and EOC test achievement. Only three of the campuses had results with more negative

model outcomes than positive, and seven campuses demonstrated more positive model outcomes

than negative results, with three having no statistically significant results. Overall, UNC

traditionally prepared teachers are likely to outperform teachers from all other sources combined,

but some programs perform substantially better than others in specific subjects or grades.

The estimates for each campus in comparison to the each of the twelve “portals” or categories of

teacher preparation are presented in separate campus-specific reports.

Carolina Institute for Public Policy

Documents

Adobe Photoshop PDF - publicpolicy.unc.edupublicpolicy.unc.edu/files/2014/02/TeacherPrepEffectRpt_Final_2011.pdf · a citizen within a democracy are not captured by these standardized